tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-162186242017-12-10T22:08:23.037-05:00XibalbaJust some personal thoughts and musings on culture, and history.Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.comBlogger416125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-55498608970018031562017-04-06T23:01:00.000-04:002017-04-09T23:03:49.284-04:00<center>April 6, 1917 </center><center></center><div align="justify"><i>This is a reposting of a posting from 2009 that I wrote about how America became involved in World War I. This is to mark the 100th anniversary of America entering the war and the emergence of the USA has the World Power.</i></div><div align="justify"><br /></div><div align="justify">This is not a date that most people today remember but it is likely to be remembered has the most important date and event of the twentieth century. It was the day on which the United States declared war on the Central Powers in World War One and basically decided that Germany and her allies would lose, unless they very quickly won. Germany had in effect only a little over a year to achieve this result otherwise she was doomed to lose.<a name='more'></a><br /><br />So just how did that epoch making event occur? In a few words it was the result of truly awesome stupidity, on the part of certain German leaders, directly related to their ignoring of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Clauswitz</span></span>’s dictum that war is a political tool and instead they subordinated politics to military “necessity”.<br /><br />On February first 1917 the Kaiser as advised by his chief military <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">advisers</span>, who were in effect rulers of Germany, Hindenburg and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Ludendorff,</span></span> launched a campaign of unrestricted submarine campaign against Allied and neutral shipping. This was done despite knowledge that this would almost certainly get the United States in the war against Germany and her allies. So why was it done?</div><br /><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5301381010648074930" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fNYaP1cGoQQ/SZJJ8PauCrI/AAAAAAAAAOI/UB2niQzwb7E/s320/240px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1987-127-09A%252C_Paul_von_Hindenburg%252C_Erich_Ludendorff.jpg" style="cursor: hand; display: block; height: 320px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 230px;" /><br /><center>Hindenburg (Left) <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Ludendorff</span></span> (Right)</center><center></center><div align="justify">At the time Britain was blockading Germany and her allies in an attempt to deprive Germany and her allies of essential materials. This caused significant distress and hunger in Germany and her allies and led to casting about for a way to retaliate, or counter blockade Britain.<br /><br />Germany had tried at various times to use U-Boats to take / sink ships that were bringing goods to England during the early part of the war. There had even been various stabs at unrestricted submarine warfare, which led to such disasters as the sinking of the Lusitania, in which over 1100 people died including more than 100 Americans. This incident came close to starting a war between America and Germany and the Germans brought this experiment to an end.<br /><br />Essentially submarine attacks on ships were a continuation of the old <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">guerre</span></span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">de</span></span> course, or <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">privatering</span></span> that European powers had engaged against each other during their past wars. In this case the u-boats were rather vulnerable to being rammed, or blown out of the water if they stuck to the recognized practice of stopping ships and searching them and enabling the crews to escape and then sinking them. This was highly dangerous. With torpedoes and deck guns there was, not surprisingly, a tendency to simply blow the ship out of the water without stopping it. Not only did stopping ships put the u-boat at risk but taking the time to search a ship put the u-boat at risk of being found in the meantime and sunk. </div><div align="justify"><br /></div><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5301380940217132338" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fNYaP1cGoQQ/SZJJ4JCrJTI/AAAAAAAAAOA/ng7Ll5q14jM/s320/300px-U-135.jpg" style="cursor: hand; display: block; height: 78px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 300px;" /><br /><center>World War I U-Boat</center><center></center><div align="justify">Added to this was the problem that neutral vessels, especially American ships were sending war material to Britain and the other allied powers. Sinking such vessels, especially if you killed a lot of passengers at the same time, ran the risk of infuriating the neutral involved. In the case of the United States this involved infuriating a great industrial / economic power.<br /><br />The U.S. was in the meantime doing excellent business with the Allied powers in terms of munitions and raw materials for war production. Also U.S. financial institutions played an important role in upholding allied finances and credit.<br /><br />Not surprisingly the Germans were infuriated both by the Allied blockade and by the fact that America was aiding the allies in many ways. America was officially neutral and certainly President Woodrow Wilson made all the right noises about trying to arrange a sort of peace deal and was apparently fully sincere in wanting peace.<br /><br />By then it was clear that if anything the Americans were pro-Allied, by reason of cultural and historical ties to Britain, and out of self interest. Although it must be emphasized the U.S. government and people did not want to be involved in a war. And frankly the American government wanted the war to end before it possibly interfered with American interests. A peace that in effect returned things more or less to the situation of early August 1914 before the war started was one that the American government found most appealing.<br /><br />Americans were emerging only recently from a long term foreign policy direction of trying to isolate themselves from the politics and struggles and internal competitions of the European great powers. Traditionally American policy had concentrated on issues involving the Western Hemisphere with the proviso that America would not interfere with the great European powers if she was left alone in the Western Hemisphere. That had begun to change with such developments has the Spanish American War, which led to the conquest of the Philippines and acquiring of an American colonial empire. <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Further</span> developments such has the acquiring of the Panama Canal Zone and the building of the Panama Canal, (opened 1914) also signaled a change indicating the emergence of the United States as a world power. In 1905 Theodore Roosevelt mediated the end of the Russian / Japanese war. All this signaled that the U.S. had arrived as a major player on the world scene.<br /><br />Despite the above America was still profoundly leery of foreign entanglements and isolationism was a powerful force in the United States. Interestingly in the 1916 Presidential elections the main slogan of Woodrow Wilson’s campaign was “He kept us out of war!” Despite the fact that, if anything, Americans in general and Wilson in particular favored the Allied powers America did not want to be involved in the war. Given this how did it happen? </div><div align="justify"><br /></div><div align="center"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5301380851977619314" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fNYaP1cGoQQ/SZJJzAUvB3I/AAAAAAAAAN4/JW2eRzmFW4Q/s320/225px-President_Woodrow_Wilson_portrait_December_2_1912.jpg" style="cursor: hand; display: block; height: 274px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 225px;" /> Woodrow Wilson </div><div align="center"><br /></div><div align="justify">Well it was because America was heavily trading with the Allied powers, in munitions and raw materials and trade in other items. Trade with the Central Powers was virtually impossible due to the British blockade, so that there did not emerge a interest group in favor of keeping up trade with the Central Powers but there did emerge a interest group in favor of unimpeded trade with the Allied powers, which was proving to be highly beneficial to U.S., financial, trade and manufacturing interests. Further there was the simple fact that attacks on U.S. ships were obviously direct threats to the lives of U.S. citizens. Obviously attacks on British ships could be explained and justified on the grounds that British ships were ships of an enemy of Germany and therefore legitimate targets. However what about neutral vessels that were importing into Britain war material? Were they not targets? Here things get dicey if only because such vessels were from powers not at war with Germany and hence not real targets, but they did contain munitions and war material! The further complication that the rules governing such transactions in past wars involving European powers allowed the stopping and searching of neutral vessels bound for belligerent ports, especially with war material and allowed for confiscation of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">cargoes</span> etc., also specified that crews would be saved and ships sunk only under very rigid circumstances. The existence of deck guns and torpedoes which allowed ships to be sunk on sight were not envisioned by these rules, neither was the fact that the “privateers” in this war, (u-boats), being so vulnerable to being sunk, made sinking ships on sight very tempting. The result was a series of mishaps and diplomatic disasters.<br /><br />The Lusitania crisis was a prime example. This started after the Germans had declared an unrestricted submarine campaign in the waters around the British Isles. Due to a series of mistakes involving what the Germans thought was the prime purpose of the Lusitania. The ship was sunk by torpedo and over a thousand passengers were killed, including over 100 Americans. The idiocy of large elements of the German press in celebrating this “achievement” <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">didn</span></span>’t help. It nearly resulted in war between Germany and the U.S. It appears that the Lusitania was carrying war material, which was frankly in violation of the then current war rules. This fact and the fact that Germany rescinded the unrestricted campaign and U.S. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">didn</span></span>’t want war prevented war from happening then.<br /><br />Given the fact that the United States was by 1900 was the greatest industrial power on the planet, with huge financial, trade and raw material resources etc; war with her was an obviously iffy proposition to be engaged in only if there was little choice. Further by 1900 the United States had a larger population than any European power, with the exception of Russia. In effect the United States was second only to the British Empire in terms of overall power world wide. The British Empire was a fairly ramshackle affair that had great difficulty using / concentrating it's power in any one particular area, so that its effective power was less than adding up its resources, population would indicate. It was just common sense not to want war with the U.S.<br /><br />Here however is where human idiocy / stupidity enters the picture. Simply a look at basic U.S. figures of population, industrial output etc., would have made it clear to any German statesmen that however annoying American trade during wartime with the Allied powers was, under no circumstances should Germany do anything to provoke America into a war. One should never underestimate the power of wishful thinking and sheer dumbness however. Despite the facts Germany's leaders stupidly did in fact provoke the United States into a war! It went as follows.<br /><br />By the early winter of 1916 the war had entered its third year of bloody stalemate. Millions of soldiers on both sides were dead. Economies were straining at the end of their tether and Germany was going through a period of severe shortages due to the blockade, of food and other materials. The population was angry, and the generals were seeking a way out of the stalemate; for a quick easy solution. The desire to strike back at Britain was very strong so that as the winter went on pressure built up to strike at Britain through a counter blockade enforced by unrestricted submarine warfare. </div><div align="justify">Here is where the stupidity came into it. The fact is anger and rage are not conducive to clear thinking in terms of policy goals and how to achieve them, and in this case the various German generals, specifically <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Ludendorff</span></span> and Hindenburg, who by this time had established what was in effect a Military Dictatorship over Germany dedicated to winning the war, had come to believe that Britain must be driven out the war by the quickest means possible. So various studies had been done and these studies had determined that sinking 800,000 tons of shipping per month for a period of 6 months would reduce Britain to famine and starve Britain of war material. So that Britain would be driven out the war in 6 months. The military studies done by the various elements of the German armed forces, especially the Naval department were characterized by distortion and a huge amount of wishful thinking and stunning over the top optimism of the prospects of unrestricted submarine warfare. Individuals like Admiral <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Tirpitz</span></span> pushed for unrestricted submarine warfare with blind optimism and a cavalier disregard for alternatives or the possibility of failure.<br /><br />In fact it should have been obvious that failure was not simply a distinct possibility it was a virtual certainty. The U-boats of the First World War had very slow underwater speeds, their torpedoes were very poor and their ability to coordinate operations with other U-boats virtually non-existent. Thus the vast majority of ships sunk by U-boats in this war were sunk by the deck guns of U-boats; and the vast majority of ships sunk were sailing alone. Given their technical limitations their ability to damage ships sailing in convoy was very limited. It should have been obvious that should the British convoy ships unrestricted submarine warfare would fail. A few escort or one escort ship per convoy would be enough to sink or drive off U-boats the great majority of time. This was both obvious and clear at the time. Further the time table for this too work was absurdly optimistic even if it had worked.1<br /><br />At the same time it was clear by the fall of 1916 that Russia was in the process of internal collapse. The possibility of Russia falling apart or leaving the war was enormous, and in fact in February 1917 a popular insurrection overthrew the Tsarist regime and Russia’s ability to prosecute the war already visibly declining disintegrated further. This would give Germany the prospect of transferring troops etc., to the western front and enable them to either attack in an effort to gain victory or to secure a favorable peace.<br /><br />So given the facts above why under those circumstances did the leaders of Germany embark on this foolish venture? To add America has their enemy just when Russia was collapsing meant replacing one enemy with a far more powerful enemy. The simple fact is many of the German leaders were prey to delusions. The fact that many in the German <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">government</span> thought that America's entry on the side of the Allies <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">inevitable</span>, if only for the Americans to help recover the huge sums they had loaned to the allies, made many people in the German <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">government</span> think that if America entered the war sooner rather than later it would make little difference. Of course this was nonsense the sensible policy would have been to put off American entry into the war has long as possible to the point where American help to the allies would have made no difference. Another delusion was that submarine warfare would work, ignoring the skeptics who pointed out the obvious problems. That American intervention would only add more supplies / financial aid to the Allied war effort. That any American expeditionary force would be small and so forth. In other words a stew of wishful thinking. Further America was simply underestimated and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Ludendorff</span></span> and Hindenburg remained quite happily ignorant of American economic power. It was pointed out that the American army was by European standards absurdly small, but ignored that given American economic power a huge Army could be created in less than two years. It was claimed that U-boats would sink troop ships and therefore prevent any substantial number of troops coming over the Atlantic. These fantasies, which is what they were, clouded clear thinking it was what <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Ludendorff</span></span>, Hindenburg and their cortege wanted to hear so they heard it.2<br /><br />The fact that since the war began the British Admiralty, in a fit of bull headed idiocy had utterly refused to institute convoys for various empty headed reasons had helped to reinforce German delusions about the efficiency of submarine warfare. In fact only if the British refused to institute convoys did the plan have even a ghost of a chance of working and frankly counting on the British being so stupid to the bitter end was foolish in the extreme. The fact that Lloyd George, who became British Prime Minister in 1917, was pressing for adoption of convoys made adoption a virtual certainty. Faced with this constellation of circumstances i.e., Russia leaving the war, unrestricted submarine warfare almost certainly to fail, and the U.S. entering the war if unrestricted submarine warfare was declared. The sensible option would have been not to do so but to sit tight.<br /><br />The results were predictable, the fact that Germany allowed certain of their diplomats to make foolish moves like encouraging Mexico to attack the United States and offering an alliance with Mexico directed against the United States were mere infuriating icing on the cake. The United States simply did not want war with Germany but with great foolishness German leaders infuriated the U.S. government, citizens and businesses, (by trying to end their profitable trade with the Allied powers). It is by any standards one of the greatest examples of plain stupid policy making in world history.<br /><br />The effects shaped the world we have today, even more than the Russian Revolution. America entered the war. Britain adopted the convoy system. Submarine warfare, despite the idiotic reluctance of the British Admiralty to adopt convoys, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">didn</span></span>’t even come close to driving Britain out of the war.3 It simply failed. Replacing America with Russia ensured allied victory. More than 2 million American troops were sent to Europe and less than 50 were killed by U-boat attacks. The U-boats proved spectacularly ineffective in attacking convoys or sinking troop ships. Germany’s had to attack in the west before American troops arrived en mass. The chances of the attack working were not good and frankly any chance of Germany victory had evaporated by June 1918 and any reasonable chance of German victory had probably evaporated by the time the first German western offensive was launched in March 1918.<br /><br />After the war both Hindenburg and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Ludendorff</span></span> helped to manufacture the stab in the back legend i.e., that politicians, liberals, Socialists etc., had betrayed Germany and caused the loss of the war. This was nonsense, it was their own single minded and foolish choices has military men that lost Germany the war, but blaming the politicians who had to clean up the mess they created was more psychologically satisfying I guess. This was part of a wholesale campaign by various people within German society to undermine the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Weimer</span></span> Republic. Thus did the men who lost the war for Germany help pave the way for Hitler.<br /><br />In world terms this marked the establishment of the United States has the worlds predominant power, in finance, trade, culture etc., a dominance that only recently in a very Americanized world has began to fade. It appears that Communism for example, was mainly a bump that disguised the predominant fact of the twentieth century, the large scale westernization of the world through the medium of American power and culture.<br /><br />And that is why April 6, 1917 is so important.<br /><br />1. Blair, Clay, <strong>Hitler’s U-Boat War: The Hunters, 1939-1942</strong>, Modern Library, New York, 1996, pp. 9-22. This is a brief section that briefly surveys German U-Boats in World War I.<br /><br />2. Ibid.<br /><br />3. Ibid.<br /><br />Books consulted.<br /><br />Fuller, J.F.C., <strong>A Military History of the Western World</strong>, vol. 3, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Da</span> Capo, New York, 1956, pp. 265-275.<br /><br />Stone, Norman, <strong>Europe Transformed</strong> 1878-1919, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Fontana</span> Books, London, 1983, pp. 355-358.<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Keegan</span>, John, <strong>The First World War</strong>, Vintage Canada, Toronto, 1998, pp. 350-360.<br /><br />Epstein, Klaus, <em>Gerhard <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Ritter</span> and the First World War</em>, in <strong>The Origins of the First World War</strong>, Ed. Koch, H. W., <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Taplinger</span> Pub. Co., New York, 1972, pp. 298-303.<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Zechlin</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">Egmont</span>, <em>Cabinet versus Economic Warfare in Germany</em>, in Koch, pp. 206-214.<br /><br />Craig, Gordon A., <strong>Germany 1866-1945</strong>, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1978, pp. 378-390.</div><div align="justify">Hart, Liddell, <strong>History of the First World War</strong>, Pan Books Ltd., London, 1934, pp. 214-216, 308-312.</div><div align="justify"><br /></div><div align="justify">Pierre <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">Cloutier</span> <b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike></div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-72821256733185163842017-01-31T19:47:00.000-05:002017-02-19T16:02:34.135-05:00<div style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Sucking Up</span></b><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5yygpYFY430/WJUiy_rrbmI/AAAAAAAAC-Q/ER-So0Rx69c6liDPYJrfa9hvKStfRi4pQCLcB/s1600/thjaertja002.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5yygpYFY430/WJUiy_rrbmI/AAAAAAAAC-Q/ER-So0Rx69c6liDPYJrfa9hvKStfRi4pQCLcB/s400/thjaertja002.bmp" width="258" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Napoleon</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">One of then most outstanding examples of the tendency of media to suck up to power is a series of Newspaper headlines printed in Paris in 1815 about the return to power of Napoleon.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now after Napoleon was defeated in 1814 he had been exiled to the island of Elba, which is just off the coast of Italy.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Napoleon for various reasons tired of his exile and decided to try to regain power in France. So he left the island of Elba and landed in southern France in early March of 1815. And here are various Headlines from Paris newspapers up to Napoleon's entry into Paris on March 22 1815.</div><a name='more'></a><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">March 9</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">THE ANTHROPOPAGUS1 HAS QUITTED HIS DEN</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">March 10</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">THE CORSICAN OGRE HAS LANDED AT CAPE JUAN</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">March 11</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">THE TIGER HAS ARRIVED AT CAP</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">March 12</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">THE MONSTER SLEPT AT GRENOBLE</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">March 13</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">THE TYRANT HAS PASSED THROUGH LYONS</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">March 14</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">THE USURPER IS DIRECTING HIS STEPS TOWARDS DIJON</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">March 18</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">BONAPARTE IS ONLY SIXTY LEAGUES FROM THE CAPITAL</div><div style="text-align: center;">He has been fortunate enough to escape his pursuers</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">March 19</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">BONAPARTE IS ADVANCING WITH RAPID STEPS, BUT HE WILL NEVER ENTER PARIS</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">March 20</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">NAPOLEON WILL, TOMORROW, BE UNDER OUR RAMPARTS</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">March 21</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">THE EMPEROR IS AT FONTAINBLEAU</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">March 22</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">HIS IMPERIAL AND ROYAL MAJESTY</div><div style="text-align: center;">arrived yesterday at the Tuileries amid the joyful acclamations of his devoted and faithful subjects2</div><div align="justify" style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The progression from vicious attack and name calling to slavish adoration has Napoleon got nearer and nearer to Paris and reestablishing himself in power is reflected in the very headlines that at first moderated the name calling and then at the end sucked up to Napoleon is quite funny in a painful sort of way but perfectly reflects media subservience to power.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">At first the media in question tailored it's headlines to reflect the apparent power of the ruling Bourbon dynasty. As Napoleon got nearer to Paris the vocabulary changed to reflect the growing apparent power of Napoleon. When Napoleon took Paris the media in question fell easily and almost effortlessly into adulation of a man they were calling a cannibal and monster only a few weeks before.</div></div><div align="justify" style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div align="justify" style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: justify;">Of course there has been remarkably little real change in the media subservience to power since.</div></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. Anthropopagus means man eater or cannibal.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. Maclean, Eleanor, <b>Between the Lines</b>, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1981, p. 61.<br /><br />Note: An excellent example of modern suck up literature about Napoleon is Andrew Roberts, <b>Napoleon the Great</b>, Allen Lane, London, 2016. Mr. Roberts sucks up very hard to Napoleon and no doubt he swallows too.</div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-18276978598898350152016-12-27T18:33:00.000-05:002016-12-27T18:33:07.388-05:00<div style="text-align: center;">Happy Holidays!!!</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-V4o2vKlJrqY/WGL6D-8dCGI/AAAAAAAAC98/fqnGqtu0VQksu5IUQ1uW7e5gjXHjzqgUACLcB/s1600/thjaertja002.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="235" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-V4o2vKlJrqY/WGL6D-8dCGI/AAAAAAAAC98/fqnGqtu0VQksu5IUQ1uW7e5gjXHjzqgUACLcB/s320/thjaertja002.bmp" width="320" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>All the best and a happy New Year to you all!!</div><div><br /></div><div>Pierre Cloutier</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-13129373983513941552016-06-28T20:15:00.000-04:002016-10-07T17:37:23.799-04:00<div style="text-align: center;">Lutherean Silliness</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mlYXlSjfIkM/V3MSFMbLxhI/AAAAAAAAC9Y/bnQuPXvbRZE5OrF1RdtAaguiU8nqgyOswCLcB/s1600/luther_martin-3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mlYXlSjfIkM/V3MSFMbLxhI/AAAAAAAAC9Y/bnQuPXvbRZE5OrF1RdtAaguiU8nqgyOswCLcB/s400/luther_martin-3.jpg" width="267" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Martin Luther</span></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Martin Luther is without a doubt one of the most important persons in the history of the Western Civilization and would rightly belong in any top ten list of the most important Religious figures in history however this doesn't mean he is not one of the silliest men in History.<br /><a name='more'></a><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Now by being silly I do not mean that Luther was harmless for contrary to popular belief being&nbsp;silly doesn't mean harmless and silly beliefs can have murderous consequences. The witch craze for example.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The beliefs on which the Witch-craze was based, the pact with Satan, the Satanic Church, the Witches Sabbat, sex with Satan, were preposterous and silly in the extreme and yet tens of thousands were killed because of this silliness to say nothing of the oppression and terrorising of who knows how many.1</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Here I will look at two aspects of Luther's silliness.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now before I go on I must mention that the source of Luther's silliness which was his deep and seemingly bottomless reservoir of hate. The man was a very good hater, who responded to any sort of obstruction or disagreement from people&nbsp;by reaching deep into his reservoir of hateful bile. If any emotion dominated Luther it was his capacity to hate.2 </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now what was the source of Luther's hate. It was I believe in a truly deep and vast self loathing, more or less hatred of the self. I will go further into this later.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One of the most striking examples of Luther's bile and hatred is his very unpleasant dispute with Erasmus over predestination. Erasmus had written a rather measured and calm critique of Luther's opinions about Free Will in a short book called <b>On the Freedom of the Will</b>, Luther responded with a much longer work called <b>On the Bondage of the Will</b>. Now Erasmus was one of the foremost intellectuals of his day and a man of wide learning and of a charitable, forgiving disposition. Further Erasmus disliked disputations and ranker and called for calm reasoned discussion.3</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">What Erasmus got from Luther was a stream of bile and viciousness. I am amused that so many Christian theologians seem to think so highly of <b>On the Bondage of the Will</b>, when it is basically a piece of polemical abuse which sadly has no humour and very little of the&nbsp;self depreciation that might make it palatable. Needless to say both Luther and Erasmus spends, from the modern point of view, inordinate amounts of space discussing philological minutia and the equivalent of how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin. It is quite boring. However if Erasmus was at least trying to be scholarly, Luther was engaging in a vicious polemic that did not even pretend to be fair to his victim.4</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Has mentioned above to this day many are impressed with Luther's <b>On the Bondage of the Will</b>, saying it asserts strongly and magnificently the sovereignty of God etc. Actually I suspect that the authors are impressed with a bombastic, spittle filled explosion of incoherent rage. Which Luther's book so often reads like. For the book contains at least one clear and obvious silly argument.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now Luther asserts that men have no freedom to accept or deny salvation but that God alone determines who will be saved and who will be damned and men have no say in the matter.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Luther than asserts that to deny the above is to deny that God is God, and also to deny this is to deny the saving grace of the resurrection etc. So far it has a certain perverse&nbsp;logic. Although just why should we accept that it is a denial of God's sovereignty if men can in some sense chose salvation? And just how does that deny God is God? Luther never really answers objections he just asserts that what he claims is obvious and to&nbsp;assert otherwise means one has been blinded by Satan. Whatever.5</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">However it turns out that Luther doesn't really believe in God's absolute sovereignty for he says:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">But if we are unwilling to let this term go altogether—thought that would be the safest and most God-fearing thing to do—let us at least teach men to use it honestly, so that free choice is allowed to man only with respect to what is beneath him and not what is above him. That is to say, a man should know that with regard to his faculties and possessions he has the right to use, to do, or to leave undone, according to his own free choice, though even this is controlled by the free choice of God alone, who acts in whatever way he pleases. On the other hand in relation to God, or in matters pertaining to salvation or damnation, a man has no free choice, but is a captive, subject and slave either of the will of God or the will of Satan.6</blockquote>This gives the game away totally. Faced with the obvious fact that in day to day life people APPEAR to have the ability to choose Luther says we have that freedom. However Luther denies God's sovereignty in everyday life, probably because Luther could not bear the thought of God being responsible for the evil things that happen in day to day life. Yet Luther decides that certain things were important enough to God for God to predestine us and certain things so unimportant that God allows us freedom to choose.<br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Aside from the presumption of deciding what is important to God, there is the obvious problem that if God can allow us freedom in some areas, just why can't God allow us freedom when it comes to salvation? Luther's response such has it is amounts to God can't allow us freedom in those areas because they are too important. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Since Luther "knows" just what God would consider important, he "knows" what God would consider unimportant. Whatever. Also just how is denying God's power over unimportant things NOT denying God's power. Further if God allows us free choice in small things, why not large things and how is God allowing us freedom of choice denying God's sovereignty?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Thus Luther's <b>On the Bondage of the Will</b> contains a serious logical flaw or frankly what can only be called a silly argument.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Another silly aspect of Luther's thinking is his&nbsp;rather repellent hatreds. One of the reasons Luther so cordially hated Erasmus is, I suspect, because Erasmus was so cool, even tempered, and without much hatred or anger in him.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">You see Luther was filled with a vast amount of self loathing. Luther thought continually on his sins and magnified them into a monstrous load of satanic poison. Luther found that he simply could not fulfil the clerical ideal of the "perfect" monk so he heaped coals of self loathing on himself. Luther decided that he along with all of humanity were utterly depraved beings deserving of eternal torture and suffering. Since Luther decided that he was utter scum the rest of humanity had to be utter scum like himself. So all of mankind was dragged down&nbsp;to the same level of wickedness that Luther felt he was at.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now Erasmus was clearly NOT filled with self loathing and self hatred so of course he was evil to Luther. Further Erasmus contradicted emphatically Luther's belief that self loathing etc., was necessary to get on the path to equanimity.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Luther turned his self loathing outward into a vast torrent of words&nbsp;that reek of hatred and bile.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Luther was&nbsp;unable to fulfil the ideals of a clerical life and&nbsp;further Luther seemed to believe that on a fundamental level he and all of mankind were incapable of works that could please God and that God could never be pleased by mere humans and so some are saved only by the inexplicable grace of God who chooses to save some through inexplicable caprice.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Unable to do works that pleased God Luther turned to faith has the cardinal virtue and then asserted that faith would produce charity etc., although even so the works were meaningless in terms of salvation. Of course it is obvious from history that faith does not necessarily or even most times produces charity or good works. Let us look at Luther did his new faith in his salvation by grace produce good works? Did it produce a man brimming with charity and goodness? No it did not. Luther if any thing became angrier, more hate filled and vicious has he got older. The quiet faith of Erasmus eluded him, instead&nbsp;we got bile and hate filled screeds oozing with intolerance and hatred of his enemies or just about anyone who disagreed with him.7 Good works, love and charity signally failed to come from Luther after he found his faith and so refute at the source the silly notion that good works will proceed from proper faith.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Long ago the philosopher Nietzche noted this error:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">Still this fundamental error is propagated through Protestant teachers: that only faith matters and that out of faith works must follow necessarily. This is simply not true...8</blockquote>We have had plenty of men of faith who have done terrible and wicked things. The fact is faith of whatever kind is no guarantee that the person will do good things. Attempting to save the notion by saying it has to be RIGHT faith solves nothing because it is all to easy to show examples of bad behaviour from men of all faiths. And frankly Luther's claim ignores the fact that all to frequently men of faith use their faith to justify and excuse their actions and at times their faith is the impetus to commit the bad action. I am absolutely sure that the inquisitors when they were burning people alive though this was what their faith compelled them to do.<br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But all of this flows from Luther's self loathing due in part to his inability, in his eyes, to fulfil the life of the ideal Christian Monk. Because of that he decided works don't count, only faith does. Not surprisingly faith alone&nbsp;was not quite sufficient to make Luther a kind charitable man, which goes to show faith is not enough.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Luther was one of the most important persons of the last 1,000 years but that did not prevent him from having silly ideas. As to whether or not the silly ideas mentioned here had consequences.. <br />I don't know. Perhaps that is a topic for another time.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. For a good over all look at the European Witch Craze see Trevor-Roper, H. R.,<b> The European Witch-Craze of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries and other Essays</b>, Harper &amp; Row Pub., New York, 1969, pp. 90-192.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. See the thematic biography of Martin Luther by Richard Marius, Marius, Richard,<b> Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death</b>, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass., 1999. See especially Ch. 22 <i>On the Jews</i>, pp. 372-380,&nbsp;and Ch. 25 <i>The Peasants' Rebellion</i>, pp. 414-435.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. For the basic documents, including the ones mentioned, see <b>Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation</b>, Editors, Rupp, E. Gordon &amp; Watson, Philip S., Westminster Press, Louisville KEN., 2006. See also Marius, Ch. 27 <i>The Attack on Erasmus</i>, pp. 442-468.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">4. IBID, Luther, <b>On The Bondage of the Will</b>, pp. 101-334, Erasmus, <b>On the Freedom of the Will</b>, pp. 35-100.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">5. IBID., Luther and Marius, Ch. 27, pp. 442-468.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">6. IBID., Luther, p. 143.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">7. See Marius, Ch. 27, pp. 442-468 and Kaufman, Walter, <b>Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist</b>, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ., 2013, pp. 342-350.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">8. IBID., p. 349. Kaufman is quoting Nietzsche's <b>The Dawn</b>, (22), 1881.<br /><br />Pierre Cloutier</div></div></div></div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-88952028030394303152016-06-18T19:28:00.000-04:002017-02-03T20:15:46.909-05:00<div style="text-align: center;">Embattled Journey</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">One of the most interesting phenomena in the last couple of decades is the rise of Japanese Manga in&nbsp;the West. In fact now you can easily find shelves and shelves of translated&nbsp;Japanese Manga in book stores throughout Europe and North America north of the Rio Grande.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now Manga&nbsp;are Japanese comics but they come from a quite different tradition of publishing going back to a long history of printing wood cut prints to illustrate the books that the Japanese read. also in Japan Manga are used not just entertain and titillate, (Erotic and Pornographic Manga are common.), but also to educate and teach, such things as calculus, and even engineering. Further unlike much of the West, Manga's main audience has in fact been adults. In fact in much of the West comics are usually considered entertainment for children and teens, and&nbsp;only in the last 30 years has that begun to change in the West.1<br /><a name='more'></a><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The other thing is that much Japanese Manga has been bluntly very adult in terms of plots, language and what was drawn and has been so for generations. Unlike in much of the West where the content of comics, was&nbsp;deemed fit&nbsp;only for children and teens, and so was censored by the state and by self censorship like the Comics Code in the USA.2</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">An outstanding example of an excellent Japanese Manga is the series Lone Wolf and Cub. Published originally in the 1970s; it has inspired in Japan several movies and TV series.3</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In terms of plot the series involves the adventures of&nbsp;Ogami Itto&nbsp;and his son Ogami Daigorō&nbsp; has they journey through late 17th century Japan during the period of the&nbsp;Tokugawa Shogunate. Our hero&nbsp;Itto has been dishonoured and his wife murdered&nbsp;by the clan known has the&nbsp;Yagyū who operate has assassins for the Shogunate and wield great power. Angered and humiliated&nbsp;Itto takes himself and his son on the "Assassin's Road" has they follow the way of meifumado or hell.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Itto operates as an assassin for hire and does so to accumulate the money and skill to destroy the Yagyu. Dragging his young, impressionable, son Daigoro&nbsp;along with him and Daigoro sees routinely grotesque atrocities and killings.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As one story of killing and horror follows another it becomes clear that Itto is an&nbsp;almost&nbsp;supernatural, demonic force. He is apparently&nbsp;unbeatable and he is utterly remorseless. He takes has his sacred duty that if he is paid to kill someone, he kills that person. However he is not bereft of compassion or even humour but the relentless way he spills blood and kills makes one draw back from seeing him has fully human or heroic.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Another characteristic of this Manga series is the care taken with the details of everyday life, like what people wore, ate, the houses they lived in, the social mores of the time. This is after all&nbsp;Japan of the&nbsp;Tokugawa&nbsp;period and so quite different from the West then and now. And yet features of this society strike the reader has modern, like the greed, cruelty and lust along with love, kindness and charity. But over all this is the cruelty of Man over Man. It is a world in which the strong eat the weak and mercy is crushed by terror and violence. It is a world at the margins of respectability. In the world in which Itto with his son works his ghastly trade the extremes of human desires and hatred are expressed and nobility and virtue are tossed aside. So the world Itto and his son inhabit is the "Floating World" of prostitutes and criminal gangs, con men , beggars and thieves, of rebels and heretics and the destitute and desperate.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The result is that the stories in this series aside from the violence have a soupcon of sex and foul language so that this&nbsp;series is definitely not for children.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Perhaps the most outstanding aspect of the series is the excellence of the illustrations and drawings. The style can be characterized has realism with a bit of an edge and the abstract. Probably too both tone down the violence and too provide a distancing mechanism the illustrations are in black and white. <br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">For some examples of the illustrations in this Manga series see the following:</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Lv77y3Fnkm4/V3MHNH_cSDI/AAAAAAAAC80/RsjNJ7a2BqgJIwkLrLizgzLzAvSQTbuHQCLcB/s1600/thjaertja002.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="312" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Lv77y3Fnkm4/V3MHNH_cSDI/AAAAAAAAC80/RsjNJ7a2BqgJIwkLrLizgzLzAvSQTbuHQCLcB/s320/thjaertja002.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2L4BS3HlvDU/V3MHM3XjpRI/AAAAAAAAC8o/6UQYCdT5LnYBJ5EelClo2NCYYUQFjjIMwCLcB/s1600/thjaertja003.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2L4BS3HlvDU/V3MHM3XjpRI/AAAAAAAAC8o/6UQYCdT5LnYBJ5EelClo2NCYYUQFjjIMwCLcB/s320/thjaertja003.jpg" width="314" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mgyg7VWxwoI/V3MHMxi-3YI/AAAAAAAAC8s/AU4tv6dhCB8m_pl0n-vYksV1nspr8If3ACLcB/s1600/thjaertja004.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="222" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mgyg7VWxwoI/V3MHMxi-3YI/AAAAAAAAC8s/AU4tv6dhCB8m_pl0n-vYksV1nspr8If3ACLcB/s400/thjaertja004.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WpgDP7WpLc8/V3MHNAyJdxI/AAAAAAAAC8w/thGOfZJuxMEjcpg3HKJnvcAGDRQWYRdBQCLcB/s1600/thjaertja005.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="351" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WpgDP7WpLc8/V3MHNAyJdxI/AAAAAAAAC8w/thGOfZJuxMEjcpg3HKJnvcAGDRQWYRdBQCLcB/s400/thjaertja005.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RtleOur-T9k/V3MHND1FEAI/AAAAAAAAC84/l_tOznOgxcMyfdAGHOCflrNtn1JOJ8ZKwCLcB/s1600/thjaertja006.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="318" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RtleOur-T9k/V3MHND1FEAI/AAAAAAAAC84/l_tOznOgxcMyfdAGHOCflrNtn1JOJ8ZKwCLcB/s400/thjaertja006.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RNjAW4Q9o_s/V3MHNivY_YI/AAAAAAAAC9A/vgwp3TMPM9gI_VRBa7J50-v2X9-ec38RgCLcB/s1600/thjaertja007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="263" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RNjAW4Q9o_s/V3MHNivY_YI/AAAAAAAAC9A/vgwp3TMPM9gI_VRBa7J50-v2X9-ec38RgCLcB/s400/thjaertja007.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">In the series you see violent and evocative stories that are "told" in black and white drawings. What that does is to pare down the images to their essential elements without the distraction of colour and to of course make the stories if anything even more elemental. Of course Manga is routinely black and white but here that does, if anything, add even more to the force of the images and stories. Both the writer&nbsp; Kazuo Koike and the&nbsp;artist Goseki Kojima are very good but it is the illustrations of Goseki Kojima that are the outstanding features of the series.4</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Is lone Wolf and Cub perfect? Of course not. It is hard to keep over the course of over 100 stories ensuring that all the stories, to say nothing of comic panels, at a consistently high level. Further perhaps the most wearying part of the whole series, aside from the violence which gets tiresome at times, is the impentratable plot armor that surrounds Ogami Itto. He is just too invincible. Especially towards the end of the series where he defeats hordes of well trained Samurai warriors in battles where he is outnumbered hundreds+ to one are laughably absurd at times. Now the series does try at some level to implicitly explain it by arguing that in some sense Ogami Itto has become a Demon of Hell (?), yet the series has a whole is so well grounded in the real world that this is simply hard to accept in terms of the world created in the series. Frankly if the series had made the supernatural a clearer element in the story this would be more acceptable but has it is the series does not do so and the result is that some of Itto's fights are just silly.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">None of this however cast aspersions on the way, even &nbsp;in the silly fights, the contests are drawn for usually those fight scenes are drawn with consumate skill even in the silliest fights scenes. Although frankly the high point of the violence scenes in the series are Ogami Itto's one on one fight scenes. There are many in series and the&nbsp;variety, skill with which they are drawn are high points in the series. When Ogami Itto is facing one opponent all the distractions and the sometimes absurdities of the scenes of him with multiple opponents are pared down and reduced to essentials and it is remarkable what was done with them.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And then their is the climax of the series a one on one fight between Ogami Itto and his main opponent&nbsp;Retsudo of the Yagyu . It is a prolonged fight over several stories and the ending is shall we say not what you would expect. And in my opinion the illustrations there&nbsp;reach their peak of excellence.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">All in all I recommend this Manga Series.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. See <i>Adult Comics</i>, <b>Wikipedia &nbsp;</b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_comics" target="_blank">Here</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">2.&nbsp; See <i>Manga</i>, <b>Wikipedia</b> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga" target="_blank">Here</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. See <i>Lone Wolf and Cub</i>, <b>Wikipedia&nbsp;</b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_and_Cub" target="_blank">Here</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">4. The series was published in 28 volumes of Manga that have been translated and republished by Dark Horse Comics in those same 28 volumes. Kazuo Koike &amp;&nbsp;Goseki Kojima, <b>Lone Wolf and Cub</b>, (v. 1-28), Dark Horse Comics, Milwaukie OR, 2000-2002.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Pierre Cloutier</div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-50852849323276536442016-05-29T18:27:00.001-04:002016-12-16T01:27:26.387-05:00<div style="text-align: center;">Diffusion Part VIII</div><div style="text-align: center;">The Mystery of Disease<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qIIiiEheMUc/V0tp_OGWOmI/AAAAAAAAC74/35cNR7FS_qUwNeEiTzNgx_Skrloo8EDMwCLcB/s1600/image0511330199251416.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="273" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qIIiiEheMUc/V0tp_OGWOmI/AAAAAAAAC74/35cNR7FS_qUwNeEiTzNgx_Skrloo8EDMwCLcB/s400/image0511330199251416.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div><span style="font-size: small;">Picture of Disease ravaged Natives from</span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;">the Florentine Codex</span></div></td></tr></tbody></table><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In the past I have examined the usual arguments for contact between the Old and New World pre- Columbus. What I have concluded is that at best with the exception of the Norse (c. 1000 C.E.), the evidence is both very poor and at best indicates sporadic and intermittent contact between the Old and New World and further such contact had minimal influence on the development of New World civilization.1</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Here I will discuss briefly one of the seminal problems about arguing for sustained contact between the Old and New World pre-Columbus. The lack of similar diseases.2<br /><a name='more'></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It is a well established fact that the human populations of the New and Old World had quite different disease environments. Further the spectacular depopulation of the New World after contact due to the importation of European diseases is a well established and terrible fact. It appears that the&nbsp;Native populations of the New World were very vulnerable to European diseases.3 &nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The repeated waves of disease that swept through Native populations of the New World were a terrible and ongoing fact for centuries after the arrival of Europeans and these repeated waves along with the effects of conquest were responsible for the Native populations taking much time to recover if at all. The result is that now the Native population of the New World are decided minorities in most of the New World.4</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It was decidedly different in Africa. although in that case it was different in that Africans had iron&nbsp; weaponry unlike the Natives of the New World. However unlike the Natives of the New World the Native Africans first had been exposed to many of the diseases that the Europeans had also been exposed to and so were relatively immune to many of the diseases the Europeans could bring. Further the disease environment that the Africans lived in was rich in many diseases to which Europeans were highly vulnerable to. The result was for centuries after the beginning of the age of exploration Europeans were confined to coastal settlements and trading stations on the African coast. And those stations had very high death rates and required continual influxes of Europeans to keep up their numbers.5</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Thus Africa was preserved from European conquest simply because any European army was likely to be destroyed not just by Africans but fatally decimated by disease.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Of course the New World, especially the tropical regions were not free of epidemic disease that were potentially fatal to Europeans it was that relatively speaking compared to Africa the New World was less disease dangerous to Europeans and the population was distinctly more vulnerable to&nbsp;Old World diseases. The result was it made conquest and displacement of the Natives of the New World a lot easier than otherwise would have been the case.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So why this&nbsp;difference?<br /><br />Perhaps the best reason was the lack of major domestic animals in the New World. Of course the Natives of the New World had Dogs, Turkeys and Llamas but they lacked the profusion of domestic animals that existed in the Old World. They did not have horses, donkeys, pigs, cattle etc. What this meant was that they lacked the prolonged exposure to the diseases that these animals carried that transferred themselves to humans through prolonged contact.6<br /><br />Thus Old World people's existed in a microbial environment that included a great many of these animal born diseases. Thus over a prolonged period of time Old World peoples built up partial immunities to many of them if not complete immunities.<br /><br />Thus Old World people had developed some level of resistance to things like TB, Measles, Smallpox etc. Diseases which were either non-existent in the New World or quite different. Further because of the lack of domestic animals New World people had not developed an immunity to diseases that Old World people were vulnerable to.7<br /><br />The result was a population which was very vulnerable to the diseases brought over by Europeans and which had far fewer new diseases which Europeans were vulnerable to.8 The result was beginning with Columbus and lasting for centuries epidemics of everything from Influenza to Smallpox and Bubonic plague&nbsp;etc., etc., would decimate North American Native populations.<br /><br />What does this have to do with diffusion? Well although it doesn't prove in the slightest that there was no contact between the civilizations of the New and Old World it is a rather telling indication of the nature and scope of the contact if any.<br /><br />If the contact had been intense, regular then we should see episodes of depopulation in the archaeological record caused by disease in pre-Columbian times. Further the surviving&nbsp;population should have built up resistance to these diseases. Instead the Native population when Columbus came turned out to be very vulnerable to Old World diseases. This shows that there was a distinct difference between the nature of contact after Columbus and before Columbus. Assuming contact pre-Columbus.<br /><br />Since we know that the Norse found America c. 1000 C.E. and left little to no influence on the Native people they were in contact with and it appears didn't bring over diseases; contact seems to have been intermittent and sporadic. It can be concluded that pre-Columbus interactions between the Old and New World were much more in the nature of Norse landing in North America c. 1000 C.E. and very little like the situation after Columbus. And one of the indications of this is the devastating impact of disease on the Native population of the New World.<br /><br />Thus it appears that the impact of disease post-Columbus is another indication that any&nbsp;contact between the civilizations of the Old and New World pre-Columbus was intermittent and sporadic, and that the New World&nbsp;civilizations were largely isolated from the Old World civilizations. And of course incidental sporadic contact would also indicate that any influence of Old World civilizations on New World civilizations would be minor at best.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The tragedy that ensued after Columbus arrived in the New World was part of the price the New World paid for it's isolation from the Old World and that price makes hyper-diffusion very unlikely.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. For a list of posts talking about Diffusion see <a href="http://makinapacalatxilbalba.blogspot.ca/search/label/Diffusion" target="_blank">Here.</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. See Meltzer, David J., <b>First Peoples in a New World</b>, University of California Press, Berkeley CA, 2009, pp. 321-344, </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. IBID,&nbsp;Denevan, William M., <i>Introduction</i>, pp. 1-12, in <b>The Native Population of the Americas</b>, Second Edition, Editor, Denevan, William M.,The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison Win, 1992, and Stannard, David E., <b>American Holocaust</b>, Oxford University Press, New York, 1992, pp. 57-95, Whitmore, Thomas M., <b>Disease and Death in Early Colonial Mexico</b>, Westview Press, Boulder CO, 1992, pp. 201-218, Cook, Nobel David, Lovell, W. George, <i>Unravelling the Web of Disease</i>, pp. 213-242,&nbsp;in <b>"Secret Judgements of God"</b>,&nbsp;Editors Cook, Noble David, and Lovell, W. George, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman OK, 1992.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">4. IBID, and Diamond, Jared, <b>Guns, Germs, and Steel</b>, W. W. Norton &amp; Co., New York, 1998, pp. 354-355.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">5. IBID, Diamond, pp. 213-214.<br /><br />6. IBID, pp. 195-214, 357-358.<br /><br />7. IBID and Footnote 2.<br /><br />8. There were a few New World diseases which Europeans had not encountered before but it appears that theses diseases were far&nbsp;fewer and less lethal than the witches brew of diseases brought over by Europeans. Further the only truly major disease that may have been brought over from the New World that had a terrible impact on Europe is possibly Syphilis, although this is disputed. See Lovell et al, at pp. 230-231.<br /><br />Pierre Cloutier</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-30653402539689194952016-05-16T20:59:00.000-04:002016-12-16T01:41:27.003-05:00<div style="text-align: center;">Right Policy</div><div style="text-align: center;">Bad Execution<br />Part I<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Q5jfKZYbp5w/VzprwTX4brI/AAAAAAAAC7o/tacxTqEZSUoTGuUet6tZQrZsAKPBsKInQCLcB/s1600/hundred-years-war-H.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="130" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Q5jfKZYbp5w/VzprwTX4brI/AAAAAAAAC7o/tacxTqEZSUoTGuUet6tZQrZsAKPBsKInQCLcB/s400/hundred-years-war-H.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div><span style="font-size: small;">Capture of Jean II at the Battle of Poitiers 1358 during the </span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;">Hundred Years War</span></div></td></tr></tbody></table><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In past history there is little that is more frustrating than politicians pursuing correct and / or sensible policy by inept and sometimes disastrous methods. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In previous postings I discussed various aspects of the Hundred Years war including the foolish and counterproductive efforts at political influence of Humphrey the Duke of&nbsp; Gloucester.1 Now Humphrey was adamantly opposed to the peace policy of the government of Henry VI. However his opposition had little constructive in&nbsp;it and all&nbsp;Humphrey proposed was a redoubling of the war effort in order to get all of England's "rights" in France. That Humphrey's views were totally unrealistic and fantasy laden was obvious at the time and even more obvious now. Sadly the greater realism of Humphrey's opponents did not also translate into greater skill or realism in executing this more realistic policy.<br /><a name='more'></a><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Before I go into how the execution was muffed I will explain just why a peace policy was the most rational policy that could be pursued by the English government.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">For a time after the Treaty of Troyes (1420)2 it look has if all France would come under the domination of the English King Henry V. This was not to be, Henry V died in 1422 followed closely by the death of the mad&nbsp;French king Charles VI. Henry V was succeeded by his not yet one year old son Henry VI. Despite Henry V's death things continued to go well for the English militarily and it looked like the Dual monarchy of England and France would force Charles VII, (Son of Charles VI), to submit.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Well things went wrong eventually. The bottom line was that right from the start English efforts to conquer France didn't have a great likelihood of success. France was far more wealthy and populous than England.3 Only a civil war among the French had given the English an opening, by having the French war among themselves and one faction supporting the English claim to the French throne.4</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Sadly for the English what French support they had was grudging and half hearted and based almost entirely on Burgundian animosity against the Armagnacs. Practically speaking there was little deep support among the Burgundian faction for the English claim to the French throne.5</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Added to this is the fact that even during the later part of the reign of Henry V support in England for the fiscal and military effort to force Armagnac France to submit to the English claim to the French throne was drying up. Has the English nobility and tax payers became more reluctant to make the effort. Even during the years of success in the early part of the reign of Henry VI support from England was grudging and limited. There was just so much the English kingdom would pay for a war of conquest. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Basically the thing that enabled the English to do so well in this time period was the disorganization and ineptitude of the French regime of Charles VII. English power in France was actually fairly fragile. So in 1429 when Jeanne d'Arc arrived and managed to galvanise the French the conquest was reversed and Charles VII crowned king of France at Rheims the English dream of forcing France to accept Henry VI has king of France was revealed to be a pipe dream whose success depended far too much on the ineptitude and lack of effort of the French than on English strength. Once that changed all hope of forcing all the French to accept Henry VI has king of France vanished.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It was only after 1429 that the English began to seriously discuss seeking peace sadly their peace efforts were seriously undermined by events that inhibited the possibility of compromise.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">For example the English, even the peace party upheld much of the infamous Treaty of Troyes despite it's dubious legality.6 Further after Jeanne d'Arc arranged Charles VII's coronation at Rheims, (July 1429),&nbsp;traditional place of the coronation of French kings, Henry VI's advisers arranged the coronation of Henry VI has king of France in Notre Dame cathedral in Paris in December of 1431. This committed the English even further is pressing Henry VI's claim to the French throne, and at a time when it was rather obvious that the claim could not be made good for all of France and when much of the area that had been conquered by the English before 1429 had reverted back to French control. That did not bode well for future peace efforts.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Further it became very clear in the 1430's that English policy was caught between the blades of a scissor. On one hand the resurgent French made the English attempt to have the English king&nbsp;made the one and only king of France an absurd idea and also an impossible one. Secondly in the 1430's far greater efforts both fiscally and militarily were required to defend English held territory in France. But despite those efforts, which were far greater than those of the 1420's territory was still lost to the resurgent French, including the loss of Paris in 1436 and the Burgundians recognizing Charles VII has king of France in 1435, ending the French civil war. Further despite the greater need for financial and military help from England to hold onto what was left of English possessions in France the English nobility and gentry was increasingly unwilling to contribute fiscally or militarily to the war effort. Yet at the same time the nobility and gentry did not want anything significant given away to the French in terms of English claims in France.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In other words the English political classes that dominated the state wanted to eat their cake and have it too. They didn't want to make the sacrifices required in order to have any chance of retaining English conquests in France and yet exploded at even the hint of surrendering anything to the French. They sought any excuse to explain why the war was going badly, corruption, treason etc., and very willingly screamed betrayal at the least sign of "capitulation", but balked at sending more money and / or men. They were largely completely oblivious to the fact that despite the resurgence the French were still unable to fully make their predominance in wealth and population felt on the battlefield and that to a large extent was why the English were able to hold on.7</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The result was that Henry VI's advisers were considerably hampered in their ability&nbsp;to negotiate a peace of any kind. In fact Henry VI and his advisers were caught between a war that was in fact unwinnable in any realistic sense and a political class in England that was adamant in demanding England's "rights" in France and also so very unwilling to accept the concessions required for peace but at the same time very unwilling to make the required fiscal and military sacrifices required to have much of a chance&nbsp;of&nbsp;successfully fighting the war in France.&nbsp;Thus&nbsp; Henry VI and his advisers were damned if they did and damned if they didn't when it came to the war with France.8</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This being the case Henry VI and his advisers had their work cut out for themselves when trying to make peace.<br /><br />Realistically the best the English could have hoped for after the tide had turned was to hold Normandy and Gascony in full sovereignty, i.e., not held under the feudal sovereignty of the French king. Now not surprisingly the French were not very willing to accept what was in effect a partition of the French kingdom and the best they would offer the English was to allow them to hold Normandy and Gascony under the Feudal sovereignty of the French king.9 Given that was the first even a possibility? Well actually it was but only if the English were willing to give up the claim to the French throne and use that has a bargaining counter and they had to combine that with a renewed military effort to defend Gascony and Normandy from the resurgent French such that any French effort at re-conquest would seem hopeless.<br /><br />Here everything started to come unglued for it was not just the English Nobility and Gentry that was adamantly opposed to surrendering the claim to the French throne, but Henry VI and his advisers! Thus the peace party no less than the war party in England was opposed to giving up this claim. This at once handicapped peace negotiations and has the English military situation got worst the clinging to this aim by the English, including the peace negotiators, became a serious obstacle to peace or even a long truce. Why? Because upholding the English claim to the French throne and Henry VI's title has King of France was quite correctly viewed by Charles VII of France has an attack on the legitimacy of his own claim. The fact that over the years the English claim became more and more absurd and threadbare did not lesson the annoyance of the French at the nature of the claim.10<br /><br />If the peace maker's rigid adherence to this dubious claim didn't help but hinder negotiations for peace there was the dissolute way negotiations were conducted to say nothing of the over all domestic atmosphere.<br /><br />First if Henry VI and his advisers had a realistic view of the need for peace, sadly the atmosphere around Henry VI's government was not conducive for such undertaking. Basically Henry VI and his government was much taken with faction fighting and corruption. It made people think that the&nbsp;only things Henry VI's advisers were out for was their own advantage and produced the widespread opinion that many of Henry VI's advisers were perfectly willing to betray English interests to get ahead personally. The result - dark motives were suspected and cries of treason and treachery widespread. The actual corruption at Henry VI's court served to fuel belief that dark forces were working to destroy English "rights" in France but also served as a convenient way for the war party to avoid having to pay for in military and fiscal terms for an increased effort in France in defence of those "rights". Instead they could argue that eliminate corruption, remove treacherous etc., men from office run the war better and an increase in the fiscal and military effort would not be needed. Thus quite deliberately&nbsp;saving the pocket books of the war party.<br /><br />Further in their actual negotiations with the French The English came across has both a little too desperate for peace and stubbornly wedded to insupportable positions like&nbsp;the claim&nbsp;to the French throne. Thus the English negotiators came across has both weak and pig headed. Not a good combination.<br /><br />Of course the war party didn't help by it's embrace of utterly, by then, unrealistic aims and its general unwillingness to pay for in fiscal and military terms for what even trying to attain those aims would cost. It basically offered utterly pie in the sky&nbsp;policy aims and balked at paying the cost for such aims. It's criticism of the peace policy was in the end entirely destructive and offered no constructive alternative.11<br /><br />Faced with a unreasonable war party the peace party of Henry VI and his advisers continued to implement their peace policy in an inept fashion while at the same time clinging to utterly unreasonable positions like Henry VI being King of France.<br /><br />Thus stubbornness was combined with a feckless, almost pleading posture, when it came to engaging with the French for peace.<br /><br />Thus during the negotiations that lead to the Truce of Tours, (1444), the English&nbsp;only very reluctantly discussed&nbsp;the issue of Henry VI claim to the French crown but did so only at the last minute when they offered&nbsp;to implicitly withdraw&nbsp;the claim. Given the refusal to discuss the issue at all during the&nbsp;great majority of the conference and the refusal to make explicit the renunciation of the claim to the French crown, not surprisingly the French didn't think the offer was sincere. Subsequent English behavior would seem to indicate the French were right.&nbsp;While being adamant on one issue the English allowed allowed themselves to be maneuvered into accepting a short truce of only a few years, which was to the advantage of the French. Then to top it all off instead of using the truce as an opportunity to strengthen militarily their position in Normandy and Gascony things were instead allowed to run down and the war party which largely rejected the Truce of Tours has a sell out refused to pay for any measures that might strengthen England's position in France.12<br /><br />The whole English strategy of making peace was both too stubborn and too weak with quite predictable results. The English peace negotiaters did not accept that they were in effect coming across has sublicants asking for peace from a stronger party and they basically by more or less refusing to discuss the issue, Henry VI claim to the French throne, threw away one of their best bargaining bits.<br /><br />Thus in the end it was very much the right policy executed in a fatally inept fashion.<br /><br />Perhaps at another time I will discuss more of the details about how the English Peace party muffed it..</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. See <a href="http://makinapacalatxilbalba.blogspot.ca/2013/02/goodduke-humphrey-anote-humphrey-duke.html#more" target="_blank">Here</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. The Treaty of Troyes made Henry V heir to the French throne, however most of France rejected the treaty. For more on the Treaty of Troyes see <a href="http://makinapacalatxilbalba.blogspot.ca/2010/12/losing-all-by-winning-all-first-page-of.html" target="_blank">Here</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. At least 3 time and likely 4-5 times more populous and in terms of wealth the contrast was even greater. See Seward, Desmond, <b>The Hundred Years War</b>, Penguin Books, London, 1978, pp 24-26.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">4. The Burgundians versus the Armagnacs. See Seward, pp. 143-152, Sumption, Jonathan, <b>Cursed Kings: The Hundred Years War IV</b>, Faber &amp; Faber, London, 2015, pp. 234-277, 468-529.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">5. Seward, pp. 192-197, Barker, Juliet, <b>Conquest,</b> Little Brown, London, 2009, pp. 84-90, 224-229, Sumption, pp. 695-696. <br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">6. Among other things Charles VI was insane at the time he agreed to it. See Allmand, Christopher, <b>The Hundred Years War</b>, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988, p.31, Sumption, pp. 699-700, Seward, pp. 181-182. For the decline of English interest in fiscally and militarily supporting the English cause in France&nbsp;see Ormrod, W. M., <i>The Domestic Response to the Hundred Years War</i>, in <b>Arms, Armies and Fortifications in the Hundred Years War</b>, Ed. Curry, Anne &amp; Hughes, Michael, The Boydell Press,&nbsp;Bury St. Edmunds Suffolk, pp. 83-101, &nbsp;and Griffiths, R. A., <b>The Reign of King Henry VI,</b> Second Edition, Sutton Pub., 1998, pp. 107-122, 376-394.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">7. Seward, pp. 226-227.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">8. See Ormond and Griffiths, pp. 443-454.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">9.&nbsp; Griffiths, pp. 198-200, 446-450,&nbsp;491-492. Barker, pp. 268-273, Seward, pp. &nbsp;I note that in negotiating the Truce of Tours, the English were willing to implicitly abandon the claim to the French crown but it appears that it wasn't meant seriously; see Griffiths.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">10. IBID, and Griffiths pp. 480-492, Seward, pp. 244-245.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">11. For the corruption of Henry VI court and government see Griffiths pp. 68-105, 295-375. For the reluctance of the English to pay for the war see above and Ormond.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">12. Seward, pp. 246-248, Barker, 365-369.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Pierre Cloutier</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-62257115456735749162016-04-23T19:15:00.000-04:002016-12-16T01:43:23.318-05:00<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Epstein's Folly</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2QGJCSt1nus/VxwBKrHOtwI/AAAAAAAAC7Y/0Ah-bjk9SRkG1Lu3NqJkpUi7_KJFN1YUgCLcB/s1600/sacsayhuaman-17-06-2011-205.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="267" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2QGJCSt1nus/VxwBKrHOtwI/AAAAAAAAC7Y/0Ah-bjk9SRkG1Lu3NqJkpUi7_KJFN1YUgCLcB/s400/sacsayhuaman-17-06-2011-205.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Sacsayhuaman</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: 12pt;">I have in the past discussed the woo writer and all round fringe thinker Graham Hancock1. Here I will discuss a review of Hancock’s latest woo-fest </span><b style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Magicians of the Gods</b><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: 12pt;">2. The review by a Prof. Jon Epstein is a wonderful example of a Professional academic latching on to a woo claim in order to feel bold, daring and cutting edge.3</span></div><a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;">In other words just another intellectual with a severe case of epater le bourgeoisie. Shock for the sake of shock in other words. Also Prof. Epstein, who teaches Criminal Justice and Sociology and seems to have no relevant degrees in Anthropology or Archaeology, like so many before him is so interested in proving how bold, daring and outré he is in a&nbsp;field that he seems to know little of, that he accepts the bold, daring, cutting edge and new ideas of Graham Hancock. However the ideas of Graham Hancock are not bold, daring or new they are instead rehashes of old and I mean old notions going back over a century. Basically Hancock simply regurgitates and re-chews the fringe claims of Ignatius Donnelly from two of Donnelly’s books.4</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">The following is a series of quotes from Prof. Epstein’s review if Hancock’s book with my comments.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Prof. Epstein in this book states among many, many risible things that Hancock’s books are good:<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in 5pt 0.3in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">"... due to it being thoroughly researched and referenced, ..."<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Anyone who characterizes Hancock’s works has thoroughly researched and referenced is at once not to be taken seriously. Hancock habitually ignores evidence that flatly contradicts his fantasies.5<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0.3in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">... "Gobekli Tepe, understood by archaeologists to be a site of profound significance. Extraordinary in its size, sublime in its craftsmanship and masterful in its construction, the site is jaw dropping. Accurately dated to the tenth millennium BCE Gobekli Tepe is now considered among the most important megalithic sites in the world, and is deeply and significantly “out of place” with our current understanding of Neolithic culture, its social organization, its understanding of the natural world and its abilities. Additionally, it is not unique. Another seemingly identical site, Kaharran Tepe, has recently been found on a Turkish farmers land within sight distance of the other. Currently understood to be built between 12,000 and 11,000 BCE, and buried and abandoned around 9600 BCE, Gobekli Tepe appears, and disappears, 5000 years before the first hints of civilization appear, down river in what is now Iraq, in 4500 BCE. Archaeologists were resoundingly, and more or less uniformly, dismissive, incredulous, and eventually a bit shell shocked but accepting of the science, because that is what they do."6<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Well the site is indeed quite impressive and early but Prof’ Epstein’s gee whiz purple prose is off the wall nonsense. First Epstein carefully elides the fact that there is little evidence even with the ruins of Gobekli Tepe of the practice of agriculture at the time or at this site. Instead the site seems to have been built by Hunter-Gatherers and they are not in any sense evidence for Hancock’s Super-Civilization before civilization. It in fact occurs In the area that Archaeologists have considered the place of origin for the earliest agriculture on Earth. A couple of thousand years after Gobekli Tepe is the site of Catalhoyuk which is one of the earliest settlements in the world with clear evidence of Agriculture. The evidence for example suggests that Gobeki Tepe fits into a model of the gradual development of Hunter Gathers into agriculturalists. Further Archaeologists are not in any sense blown away by Gobekli Tepe instead it is woo writers like Graham Hancock who are.7 <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Further Prof’ Epstein’s comment that Gobeki Tepe appears and disappears 5,000 years before the first hints of civilization is simply utterly false and shows an abysmal level of knowledge of Middle Eastern Archeology. For example Epstein ignores the sites of Catalhoyuk and Jericho to say nothing of Archaeology in Southern Iraq.8&nbsp; <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">So I guess Epstein has never heard of the truly impressive walls of Jericho that date to c. 8000 B.C.E., and have been known since the 1950s. The gee whiz reporting of the site by Epstein is pure fringe talk. And of course Epstein ignores all the evidence that indicates that most of the site predates settled agriculture. The statement of the Archaeologists being dismissive, incredulous, (shell shocked is especially amusing), are pure fringe speak and straw manning. &nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">But then this is only the beginning of Prof. Epstein’s distortions.</span><span lang="EN"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0.3in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">"The nature of that evidence, and what conclusions can be drawn from it, is meticulously cataloged and detailed in Fingerprints of the Gods and explored further in a string of bestsellers throughout the 1990s: ..."<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Characterizing Hancock’s book Fingerprints of the Gods has “meticulously” anything except mendacious is risible. The book is characterized by myriad distortions, fabrications and nonsense. The chapter on the Bolivian site of Tiwanaku is especially distorted.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">The bottom line is that describing <b>Fingerprints of the Gods</b> has meticulously catalogued is risible. The bibliography contains much pseudo nonsense. It is slight, superficial and recycles old debunked "mysteries" like the Piri Reis map with little to no awareness that they are thoroughly debunked. It recycles the discredited "White Gods" mythos. And its treatment of the age of Tiwanaku, mentioned above, and the Mayan calendar nothing less than absurd.9<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0.3in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">&nbsp;"...the Sphinx bore the unmistakable effects of water erosion caused by long term exposure to rain in a temperate environment. Because the Northeastern Sahara has been a desert since approximately 3500bce, the Sphinx could not have been built any later than that date, 5500 years ago."<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Hilarious! Epstein seems to be utterly unaware that the "geological" evidence for an early date for the Sphinx has been debunked well over a decade ago and the "unmistakable" evidence of "water" erosion not so unmistakable. Epstein should look up salt exfoliation which is occurring on the Sphinx to this day.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Epstein is simply repeating fringe talking points here has if the refutations have never existed. By the way the evidence for Khafre building the Sphinx is more than what he gives.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">The bottom line is that the damage to the Sphinx is almost certainly not the result of water erosion but salt exfoliation and the massive water erosion thought of by promoters of woo simply not needed.10 <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0.3in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">"Furthermore it is known that the original foundation of ancient Egypt was laid by people who were not native of Egypt, but were instead from the Fertile Crescent, ..."<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">First the idea that the founders of historic Egypt came from the Fertile Crescent is an old one. (Look up the Dynastic Race idea.), going back to the late 19th century. Epstein seems to be utterly unaware of recent Egyptology that while accepting that cultural influences came from the Fertile Crescent, that Egypt developed mainly in situ. In other words there was no Dynastic Race invasion from the Fertile Crescent. Epstein seems to be just accepting what he is told by the fringe.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Epstein should really get with the program. The Dynastic Race idea has not been held by the great majority of Egyptologists for well over a generation. The current notion is that Egyptian civilization / state was not the result of an invasion but internal developments. The evidence suggests influence from Iraq not an invasion at all.11<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0.3in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">"As a result the position taken by Egyptologists that the Sphinx could not be any older than 4500 years because humans had not yet learned the skills necessary for building it until that time is false."<o:p></o:p></span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0.3in; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">…<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0.3in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">"Therefore, following the deductive method, an earlier date for the Sphinx is NOT impossible, simply improbable, and hence (following from the principles of good science) should be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly."<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">This reads like a pure strawman. I wonder if any Egyptologist ever held this position. However I will point out for the alleged time period of the early Sphinx (Before 8,000 B.C.E.), there is indeed no evidence for those skills in Egypt. There is plenty of archeology of early pre-dynastic sites in Egypt and it appears little evidence in this time period for such skills.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Prof. Epstein is truly engaging in straw manning. I have yet to read any Egyptologist whose position about the date of the Sphinx rests on the notion that it could not be earlier than 4,500 years ago because before then people in Egypt didn’t have the skills to build it. It instead rests on a whole series of pieces of evidence that point towards the reign of Khafre, (c. 2,500 B.C.E.). <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Further in the philosophical sense nothing is impossible. That however does not mean that every possibility, however unlikely, should be investigated. The bottom line is that a society that could build the sphinx at the date suggested by the promoters of woo like Hancock would I would think leave evidence of its existence in Egypt. It did not. In fact agriculture does not seem to have existed at this time in Egypt. (c. 8,000 B.C.E.) In fact this culture seems to have not left an archaeological trace. In other words it does not appear to have existed. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Further Prof. Epstein ignores the fact that this fantasy about the early date of the Sphinx has been investigated thoroughly and found to be, to put it mildly, wanting. It is simply not worth taking seriously in the slightest. Prof. Epstein is distorting by denying that it has been investigated.12<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0.3in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">"Hancock turns his attention to Indonesia at a site called Gunung Padang. Long thought to be a natural hill upon which a Megalithic site had been constructed in 1500bce, recent archeological and geological research on the site have determined that not only is it NOT a natural topographic feature but rather a pyramid, but its date of construction has been determined, through radio carbon dating, to have been between 20,000 and 13,000bce."<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">No need to take Prof. Epstein’s research seriously here. Even Wikipedia has done a good job of laying out just how dubious this woo fringe stuff about this site is. First it is much later than 20,000-13,000 B.C.E. and secondly it is&nbsp;basically one maverick Archaeologist promoting this woo. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Firstly the actual monument on the site is much smaller than the fantasy promoted by woo merchants. Secondly the date c. 1,500 B.C.E. seems to be about right. Both Hancock and Epstein support a fantasy about the site that is rejected by the great majority of Indonesian Archaeologists.13 <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0.3in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">"The memory of a great flood, as described in the story of Noah, is actually a trope, and occurs in hundreds of variations all over the planet. There are flood stories from every continent, and all tell essentially same story of a sudden and catastrophic flood that caused profound changes to the planets geography, climate and wild life and wiping out all traces of humanity with the exception of a few survivors, often depicted as having been “chosen” to do so through divine intervention for reasons pertaining to the continuation of both the human race and various, specific, traditions."<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Yes the great flood is a common trope but it is far from universal. The bottom line is that many peoples do not have myths of a great flood and further that the spread of Europeans all over the world in the last few centuries also spread a particular tradition of the great flood that affected mythological traditions all over the world. The result being that often it is hard to discern “authentic” traditions about a flood from European influences.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Further there is the simple fact that there is literally NO evidence for a worldwide great flood. At best the increase in flooding related to the end of the last glacial period may have inspired flood myths but that is mere speculation. However there is still no evidence of a catastrophic worldwide great flood at all.14 &nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0.3in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">"It is now known that it is highly probable that a very large comet, which had fragmented, impacted with Earth in about 11,000bce in the Northern Hemisphere on the Laurentide Ice Sheet located near the Great Lakes in North America4. This impact, it turns out, was devastating, and has been linked to the Holocene extinction, the rapid disappearance of a large number of plant and animal species, specifically the larger species of mammals such as mammoths and the mega-predators, in the early stages of the 11th millennium BCE." <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">There is some evidence for this but it is hardly conclusive but in fact speculative. And even if it is true it does not support the notion of a worldwide great flood or Hancock’s pre-historical Super Civilization in the slightest.15<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0.3in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">"... I found all of his criticism of academic work in general to be presented in a thoroughly professional manner."<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Ah so when he accuses professional Archaeologists of suppressing the truth, of fraud and lying and being close-minded etc., he is being thoroughly professional!? When Hancock, distorts, and strawmans and in effect fabricates he is being professional!?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Prof. Epstein’s definition of “professional” is obviously quite different from most peoples.16<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0.3in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">"In order for me to accept the paradigmatic narrative of Inca civilization, I would be forced to reject firmly established “truths” from my own discipline, which were arrived upon through empirical examination of well established, statistically supportable, and verifiable concepts regarding social and cultural organization drawn from a hundred years of peer reviewed, published, science. Science, drawn through the process of deductive, empirically verifiable research leads me to conclude that while we do not know who built Macchu Pichu, Puma Punka, or Sacsayhuaman we do know who didn’t: The Inca. The remaining Inca descendants, by the way, agree."<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Here Prof. Epstein tries to bullshit his way by using a variation of arguments from authority and incredulity. He in effect is saying that according to his expertise the Inca could not have built these sites because they were too primitive socially to have done so. No doubt Prof. Epstein is an expert on the social and administrative organization of the Inca Empire (Snark).<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Actually what Prof. Epstein is doing here is pulling it out of his ass. First no one I’ve known of including the Inca themselves have ever claimed that Puma Punka, (Part of the Tiwanaku site in Bolivia), is Inca. As for Sacsayhuaman, (at Cuzco) from some modern studies much of the site appears to be indeed pre-Inca, (900-1200 C.E.), but that provides little comfort for the woo merchants and believers in a “lost” civilization. This simply a claim that the site was built by the locals just before the establishment of the Inca dynasty c. 1200 C.E. Even if this view is true it is also clear that the Inca also did building work at Sacsayhuaman al.17<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Also the sad fact for Hancock and Prof. Epstein’s fantasies is that Macchu Pichu is indisputably Inca dating to the first half of the 15<sup>th</sup> century C.E. and built for the Inca Emperor Pachakuti As indicated quite clearly by archeological remains dug up at &nbsp;the site to say nothing of the historical traditions recorded by the Spanish..18<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Further Epstein and Hancock ignore the very large number of Inca sites all over Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador that show strong indeed overwhelming similarities with Macchu Pichu. And of course Both Epstein and Hancock ignore the extensive work that has been done of Inca building techniques showing just how sites like Macchu Pichu were built.19 But of course Prof. Epstein just like Hancock ignores and / or is ignorant of this work.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">And of course Prof. Epstein is clearly supremely ignorant, it seems, of the actual social organization of the Inca Empire. The bottom line was that the Empire was well organized with an efficient, if ruthless bureaucracy and perfectly capable of great public works, like for example the Inca road system.20 <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">All of his guff about “verifiable concepts”, “peer review” and “cultural organization” is mere bullshit to cloak an argument from incredulity. Prof. Epstein just cannot believe that primitive natives could have done it. So in this respect Prof. Epstein exactly duplicates Hancock’s argument from incredulity, i.e., the natives could not have done “it” because they could not have done it. This attempt to steal the heritage is rather blatant. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">The bottom line is that sites like Macchu Pichu were built all over the Inca Empire and work was continuing on them right up to the Spanish conquest.21<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Oh and by the way Prof. Epstein repeats Hancock’s bromides that the Inca descendants attributed the building of places like Machu Picchu to others, (Other than themselves or their ancestors.) that is to put it mildly distorted to say the least. Aside from sites like Tiwanaku (Not Inca), and other sites the vast majority of Inca sites the Inca descendants attribute the sites, (Like Machu Picchu) to their ancestors and the archaeological evidence supports this. The fact Prof. Epstein just accepts this from Hancock is actually quite funny.22<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">The fact is the Inca Empire was the largest Bronze Age Empire ever and was a sophisticated governmental and bureaucratic system perfectly capable of great public works. But then both Hancock and Prof. Epstein are engaged in denigrating the accomplishments of the natives by attributing much of what they did to others. Like Hancock’s treatment of the Maya the denigration by Prof. Epstein of the Inca is annoying but typical of writers in the woo genre.23<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0.3in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">“I have found, again without exception, that not one of them had actually read as much as a single word of his work. Not a single word. Worse, I was told by a world famous, highly credentialed, respected and well placed member of the archaeological establishment that they didn’t need to read it to know what it is: dangerous nonsense that disrespects science. I replied that I had no idea it was that insidious, and thanked her for her time.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Of course Prof. Epstein is bullshitting again when he asserts not a single Archaeologist has read Hancock. Some have and concluded, correctly, that Hancock is crap further given Prof. Epstein’s rather obvious biases I seriously wonder if he is reporting this conversation fairly or accurately. Still the bottom line is that Hancock is another in the long list of crank woo writers who have written tome upon tome of rubbish. It is more than a bit absurd to expect Archaeologists to read all this sewage. Frankly they have better things to do. After all does one expect Physicists to read the acres and acres of speculative, nonsensical “Spirit Science” and Paranormal woo that clogs the shelves of book stores. I don’t think so. One doesn’t have to read Hancock to know he is spreading absurd woo, especially when one’s trained colleagues have already done so and concluded it is crap.24<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Epstein is just one of many examples of an accredited scholar who latches on to one, or more, fringe claims and of course has a deep distrust of those disciplines, and such fields are accused by said scholar of being hidebound, dogmatic et.. That the scholar in question has little or no knowledge of the field(s) &nbsp;h/she distrusts is also very common.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">What is also common is the attitude of epater la bourgeoisie. The delicious sensation of feeling that they are being daring, bold and forward&nbsp; thinking for advancing fringe notions.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Sadly Epstein is simply recycling has "new" and "daring" really old notions and fantasies for advancing woo.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">1. See <a href="http://makinapacalatxilbalba.blogspot.ca/2010/11/at-website-counterknowledge-i-recently.html">Here</a>and <a href="http://makinapacalatxilbalba.blogspot.ca/2010/07/hancock-woo-graham-hancock-following-is.html">Here</a></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">2. Hancock, Graham, <b>Magicians of the Gods</b>, Thomas Dunne Books, New York, 2015.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">3. See Epstein, Jon, <i>“But then, just for the hell of it, you decide to up the ante”- Review- Graham Hancock’s Magicians of the Gods</i>, At <b>Sacred Geometry International</b> at <a href="http://sacredgeometryinternational.com/but-then-just-for-the-hell-of-it-you-decide-to-up-the-ante-review-graham-hancocks-magicians-of-the-gods">Here</a>.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">4. The books are Donnelly, Ignatius,<b> Atlantis: The Antediluvian World</b>, Harper &amp; Brothers, New York, 1882,<b> Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel</b>, D. Appleton &amp; Co. New York, 1883.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">5. For example the date of Tiwanaku. See Fagan, Garret,<i> Analysis of Hancock's Position Statement on C-14 Dating</i>, In <b>The Hall of Maat</b>, <a href="http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&amp;file=article&amp;sid=19">Here</a>, and <i>An Answer to Graham Hancock</i>, also at<b> In the Hall of Maa</b>t, <a href="http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&amp;file=article&amp;sid=18">Here</a>.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">6. All quotes from Epstein are from his review mentioned in Footnote 3.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">7. See Hodder, Ian, <b>The leopard’s Tale</b>, Thames and Hudson, London, 2006, pp. 200-206., See also <i>Gobekli Tepe</i> <b>Wikipedia&nbsp;</b> at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe">Here</a>.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">8. IBID., Hodder, pp. 134, 171, 178, 235, 246, Kuhrt, Amelie,<b> The Ancient Near East</b>, v. 1 Routledge, London, 1995, pp. 19-27, Daniel, Glyn, <b>The First Civilizations</b>, Penguin Books, London, 1968, pp. 65-81, 164, 192-193, Hawkes, Jacquetta, <b>The First Great Civilizations</b>, Penguin Books, London, 1973, pp. 43-48, Iraq, Roux, George, <b>Ancient Iraq</b>, 3<sup>rd</sup> Edition, Penguin Books, London, 1992, pp. 33-84.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">9. Hancock, Graham, <b>Fingerprints of the Gods</b>, Three Rivers Press, New York, 1995, pp. 21, 76-98, 160-161. Two books on Tiwanaku that wash away Hancock’s absurdities are Janusek, John Wayne, <b>Ancient Tiwanaku</b>, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, and Kolata, Alan L., <b>The Tiwanaku</b>, Blackwell, Oxford, 1993.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">10. There is a large literature on this&nbsp; I will simply refer the readers to, Lawton, Ian &amp; Ogilvie-Herald, Chris, <b>Giza: The Truth</b>, Invisible Cities Press, Montpelier VT, 2001, pp. 292-320.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">11. See Romer, John, <b>A History of Ancient Egypt</b>, Penguin Books, London, 2012, pp. 3-112, Hoffman, Michael A., <b>Egypt Before the Pharaohs</b>, Second Edition, University of Texas Press, Austin TX, 1991.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">12. Footnote 10.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">13. <i>Gunung Padang </i>, <b>Wikipedia</b> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunung_Padang_Megalithic_Site">Here</a>.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">14. See Stiebing, William H., <b>Ancient Astronauts Cosmic Collisions and Other Popular Theories About Man’s Past</b>, Prometheus Books, Buffalo NY, 1984, pp. 3-27.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">15. IBID., and <i>Younger Dryas impact hypothesis</i>, <b>Wikipedia</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis">Here</a>. Includes some useful criticism of the hypothesis.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">16. See Colavito, Jason ,</span> <span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;"><i>Graham Hancock Discusses Getting High, Pyramid Myths, and Looking for Hidden DNA Messages</i>, Jason Colavito, at <a href="http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/graham-hancock-discusses-getting-high-pyramid-myths-and-looking-for-hidden-dna-messages">Here</a>.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">17. McEwan, Gordon F., <b>The Incas: New Perspectives</b>, &nbsp;W.W. Norton, New York, 2006, p. 76. Morris, Craig, von Hagen, Adriana, <b>The Incas</b>, Thames and Hudson, London, 2011, pp. 124-126, D’Altroy, Terrence N., <b>The Incas</b>, Blackwell, London, 2002, pp. 121-124.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">18. Morris et al, pp. 190-195, D’Altroy, pp. 126-127.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">19. See Protzen, Jean-Pierre, <b>Inca Architecture and Construction at Ollantaytambo</b>, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993, by same author see <i>Inca Stonemasonry</i>, <b>Scientific America </b>254(2) pp. 94-103, 1980, and <i>Inca Quarrying and Stonecutting</i>, <b>Nawpa Pacha</b>, 21, pp. 183-219. Morris et al, pp. 86-90.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">20. See McEwan, pp. 83-136, Kolata, Alan L., <b>Ancient Inca</b>, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013, pp. 199-239, D’Altroy, pp. 205-262, Morris et al, pp. 32-47.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">21. Morris et al., pp. 77-101, McEwan, pp. 171-177.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">22. Morris et al, p. 192, D’Altroy, p. 133.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">23. For Hancock’s denigration of the Maya see His <b>Fingerprints of the Gods</b>, pp. 160-164. There we find comments like:<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Isn’t all this a bit avant-garde for a civilization, [Hancock is here talking about the Mayan Calendar, the Mayan numerical system and Mayan Astronomy.] that didn’t otherwise distinguish itself in many ways? It’s true that Mayan architecture was good within its limits. But there was precious little else that these jungle-dwelling Indians did which suggested they might have had the capacity (or the need) &nbsp;to conceive of really long periods of time. (p. 163)<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">And <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Isn’t it a bit odd that this otherwise unremarkable Central American tribe should, at such an early date, have stumbled upon an innovation [Hancock is here talking about the zero] which Otto Neugebauer, the historian of science, has described as ‘one of the most fertile inventions of humanity’. (p. 161)<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">So the Maya are a "jungle dwelling" "tribe" that had few worthy accomplishments and so any worthy accomplishments could not have been their's including the zero!? The contempt and condescension just drips from Hancock.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">24. For Archeologists treating Hancock seriously and dismissing him as a purveyor of woo see a collection of reviews of fringe nonsense published in <b>American Antiquity</b>, v. 80, no. 3, pp. 615-629, Hancock ‘s <b>Fingerprints of the Gods</b>, is reviewed by Feder, Kenneth L., pp. 617-618. See also see the various reviews of Hancock’s material at <b>In the Hall of Maat</b> at <a href="http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Topics">Here</a>.</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;">Pierre Cloutier</span><span lang="EN"><o:p></o:p></span></div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-10077922918629154892016-04-14T20:11:00.001-04:002016-04-25T22:45:47.590-04:00<div align="center">Fantasy and Scholarship</div><div align="center">A Case Study<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j4LrgWU_eKo/VxAvqmLIOaI/AAAAAAAAC68/VLbd2G3mGeQ0rxZAwQu5xG6Vnrobwz7DQCLcB/s1600/_67154020_cans_1900_science%255B1%255D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j4LrgWU_eKo/VxAvqmLIOaI/AAAAAAAAC68/VLbd2G3mGeQ0rxZAwQu5xG6Vnrobwz7DQCLcB/s400/_67154020_cans_1900_science%255B1%255D.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">19th Century Tin Cans</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In two previous posts I talked about the infamous Franklin Expedition1 Here I would like to review a book about the Franklin Expedition. The book is called <b>IceBlink</b>2</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a name='more'></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />There&nbsp; is a large literature about the Franklin Expedition and the various expeditions in search of finding Franklin's fate.3 Some of it is crack brained, and some of it is well head scratching.4 Although this book is not cracked-brained it is definitely head scratching.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Of course the discovery of the very intact remains of the Erebus sunk in fairly shallow water just off O'Reilly island near King William's island in Nunavet in 2014 has reawakened interest in the Franklin Expedition&nbsp; at least within Canada. Further it has verified stories told to McClintock and others about the fate of one of Franklin's ships told to them by the local Inuit.5</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The book I'm reviewing was published many years before the rediscovery of the Erebus and so cannot take into account what has so far been discovered from the wreak and how that pertains to clearing up some of the mystery. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Like so much of the literature on the Franklin Expedition this book seeks to "solve" the mystery of what happened and to explain why a expedition, so seemingly well equipped, would perish down to the last man. For Franklin's was the largest expedition that the British would send to the Arctic in the 19th century. For to many it was puzzling and horrifying that the expedition perished to the last man.6</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This book attempts to once again find a one cause that doomed the men in Franklin's expedition. But before I go into Cookman's theory let's look at the book in general.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">The book is an overview of the Franklin Expedition. It contains much information about the Expedition. It sums up the reasons for the expedition, the ships and the crews and then explains nicely the subsequent disaster.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In the book Cookman describes accurately that:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">Crozier's other officers were similarly the best the Royal Navy could offer, but similarly mismatched to the task at hand.7</blockquote>But also says:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The officers&nbsp;who did volunteer were splendidly qualified in all aspects save a total ignorance of what they were getting themselves into.8</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">This is an indication of Cookman's position that to a certain extent Franklin's expedition was simply not well prepared to deal with the situation if things went seriously wrong. In fact Cookman emphasises that there was likely too many officers and not enough able bodied seamen. Certainly it is interesting that with the exception of Franklin and Crozier and 5 other officers&nbsp;most of&nbsp;the officers involved were new to polar travel. In fact Cookman indicates that only 8 of the initial 134 who sailed were in fact experienced polar hands.9</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This goes with Cookman's contention that the ships were top heavy with Officers. In fact it appears Erebus had 20 Able-Bodied Seamen in a total crew of 68, The Terror with a crew of 65 had 19 Able-Bodied Seamen. For a total of 39 Able-Bodied Seamen. Both Ships had 24 Commissioned Officers, 6 Warrant Officers, 46&nbsp; Petty Officers, 14 Royal Marines and 4 volunteers.&nbsp;Of the Petty Officers 8 were Stewards whose task was personal service of the Commissioned Officers.10</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I think Cookman is right to think that this probably contributed in the end to the disaster.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But the ships themselves which Cookman describes has more or less state of the art at the time,11 were not that pleasant to be more or less trapped in during a long Arctic night. Cookman records in probably the best chapter12 in the book:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">A single hatch (the fore hatch had been sealed) led down an almost vertical 7-foot ladderway to the lower deck. This was the only heated deck and the sole berthing place for everyone aboard: sixty-five to sixty-seven men in a space measuring 96 feet long and 28 feet wide, with but 7 feet of headroom. But for the headroom, this is roughly the size of a contemporary suburban home, comfortably accommodating a family of four or five. For sixty men , however, it resembled purgatory.</blockquote><div style="text-align: center;">...&nbsp;</div><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">As confining as the officers' quarters were, the men's were positively cagelike. The entire crew, 4-two men and two midshipmen, ate, slept, and spent their off-duty hours penned in the forward third of the lower deck. This space, just 36 feet long and 28 feet wide, was horrendously overcrowded. Dr. Elie-Jean Leguillou, a ships surgeon in D'Urville's 1840 Antarctic expedition, reported such overcrowding 'conducive to the spread of contagious diseases ... if it was raining, snowing, the ship hemmed in by ice, there would be forty to sixty individuals in the orlop deck, spitting, drinking, eating, while all openings were tightly shut ... the smells from the hold, from the storeroom, the smoke, steam and smells from the kitchen, the exhalation from the lungs and skin were not dispersed by the faintest breath of fresh air; daylight hardly entered ...'13&nbsp;</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">It is descriptions like this, about life on the ships and daily grind of naval routine that this book excels. That and being a pretty easy read about the basics of the expedition and disaster are the chief selling points of the book.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But sadly the book doesn't keep to that instead it advances a conjecture that is bluntly pretty dubious. That dubious conjecture is that the key to the Franklin mystery is botulism. Also that the villain of the piece is a Stephen Goldner who was contracted by the British admiralty to provision Franklin's ships with canned provisions. Now at the time canned food was a pretty new thing and Goldner had figured out a way to reduce cooking time by increasing the temperature of the water it was cooked in.14</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Cookman describes Goldner has "evil" and makes no bones about Goldner being partly if not largely responsible for the Franklin disaster.15 Thus the book goes into the nitty gritty of Goldner's operation and what a house of horrors it is. From the inferior food used to fill the Admiralty's orders to the shoddy way the cans were made and the truly unsanitary conditions of Goldner's factory has he cut corners in order to make a profit. So not surprisingly much of the product was either spoiled or&nbsp;uneatable. Further&nbsp;Goldner broke his contract with the Admiralty by A) not providing the product in a timely fashion but at the last minute, apparently to avoid proper inspection,&nbsp;and B) not providing it in the manner agreed to, i.e., providing much of it in significantly larger cans than those agreed to.16<br /><br />Why did Goldner do this? Well because he won his contracts with the Admiralty by providing lower bids than anyone else and thus could not make much if any profit except by cutting corners.<br /><br />The results of Goldner's cost cutting was that lead, the solder used to seal the cans together, leaked lead into the food and thus gave the consumers of same lead poisoning. And&nbsp;of course much the food thus preserved in cans was either uneatable or spoilt.17 So it appears that Goldner did indeed make a contribution to the Franklin disaster. Not satisfied with this, sadly, Cookman goes on.<br /><br />Cookman tells a lot about botulism, what causes it and how it kills.18 This is all interesting but in the end utterly pointless. Why? Well because Cookman admits that proper cooking of the food destroys the poison and bacteria and further despite pages and pages of speculation of the possible&nbsp;effects of botulism on the crews of Franklin's ships Cookman provides no evidence whatsoever that a single member of Franklin's crew died of botulism poisoning.19<br /><br />Instead Cookman speculates / fantasizes. For example:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">By the summer of 1847, the food cans had undergone two deep freezes and three thaws. This repeated freeze-thaw dynamic produced massive bacterial colonies and quite enough clostridium botulinum poison to kill every man on the expedition a million times over.20</blockquote></div>And:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">This abundance of canned food and appetite, along with a shortage of fuel and a bare minimum of cooking time, left them [The sledging parties]&nbsp;more exposed to greater concentrations of botulinum toxins than anyone.</blockquote><div style="text-align: center;">...</div><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: justify;">Brought to a roiling boil aboard ship, on the cook's efficient Frazer's Patent coal stove, the canned food was made safe. Away from the ship, warmed fitfully over a spirit stove, or worse -ingested wholly uncooked- deadly concentrations of toxins would have remained.21&nbsp;</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Thus Cookman speculates that the horrible death total of 1847-1848 was the result of eating insufficiently cooked canned preserved food and that due to insufficient cooking time and fuel this particularly affected the sledging parties.. Now this wouldn't be so annoying if it was clearly labeled speculation&nbsp;but Cookman generally avoids making it clear that he is engaged in utter speculation with no evidence to support it.22</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And there is one other serious problem with Cookman's theory aside from it being sheer speculation. Goldner provided the British Admiralty with canned provisions for a number&nbsp;of Arctic expeditions after the Franklin expedition sailed. Given the evidence collected later by the Admiralty and a Parliamentary investigation it appears Goldner continued his slipshod practices, one would expect evidence of botulism in those expeditions. Cookman does not give any evidence whatsoever that anything like botulism was a problem in those expeditions, although spoilt&nbsp;food etc., was a problem. So it appears that Franklin's expedition uniquely suffered from botulism from Goldner's canned goods. This failure to find botulism etc.,&nbsp;in the other British expeditions to the Arctic supplied with Goldner's shoddy goods does not help Cookman's speculation in the slightest. In fact I do not see in the book any sign that Cookman investigated the other expeditions for any signs of botulism period.23 </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Eventually even the Admiralty tired of Goldner's antics and shoddy products and they cut him off. After which Goldner, after writing several desperate letters begging for business, disappeared.24</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I should mention here that Cookman's condemnation of Goldner, although Goldner deserves it for his shoddy products, is a mite narrow In it's focus. The fact is for years and years the British Admiralty in its pursuit of saving money routinely&nbsp;accepted the cheapest bids, put up with Goldner's &nbsp;antics and bad products. Why? Because Goldner was cheap! I would say the British Admiralty was at least partly responsible for what ever ill effects Goldner's actual, rather than fanciful, damage to Franklin's expedition it&nbsp;caused.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And of course Cookman talks about cannibalism. A subject that can hardly be avoided when talking about the Franklin expedition. Especially since the issue is frankly settled and that Franklin's crews in desperation did resort to cannibalism.25 Not satisfied with this Cookman again speculates and uses the opportunity to tell true stories of people who engaged in cannibalism to survive.26</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Thus Cookman speculates:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">Faced with certain death, Crozier was forced to make a horrible and repugnant decision, the only one left him. It was certainly Crozier who made it: he was the ranking officer and among the few officers the native Inuit later reported seeing alive. He apparently chose life. He may have put it to an officer's vote or perhaps a vote of the whole party, but at most this would have merely been a ratification. The decision had to have been Crozier's.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: center;">...</div></blockquote><div><blockquote class="tr_bq">More than likely, on of the surviving surgeons was deputed to butcher the corpse. Assistant Surgeon Harry Goodsir of the Erebus had trained as an anatomist, so was particularly qualified.</blockquote><div style="text-align: center;">...</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">No part of the body, at this stage, was wasted. The heart, liver, and kidneys, all major organs, were probably extracted entire. More than likely the cooks, Diggle and Wall, chopped these up into tidbits with an axe and dropped them into the stew.27</blockquote><br />Well that is a lot of sensationalist speculation. I will spare the reader any quotes from Cookman's later fantasy of men drawing lots to see who would be killed so the others could eat him.28<br /><br />Cookman I regret to say has a tendency to speculate and go beyond, in some cases well beyond, what the evidence says and all to often is insufficiently judicious in labelling his speculations, speculations.<br /><br />That said I do agree with Cookman that in the past there has been too much Franklin bashing and that a lot of it is unfair.29 For example Cookman points out that the huge quantity of stuff left by Franklin's crew near&nbsp;Victory Point&nbsp;was almost certainly not dragged there over a three day period and left there but almost certainly dragged there and stored over a period of at least a few weeks likely in preparation for abandoning the ships. Further brass curtain rods and the lightening conductor would have useful in dealing with the lightening storms common in the featureless and flat terrain of King William Island.30<br /><br />Cookman like a lot of writers about the Franklin expedition seeks a single cause solution to the mystery of what went wrong. Some blame British cultural arrogance, others blame lead poisoning and Cookman finds his single solution in botulism, even though he makes prudential statements about the disaster having multiple causes. Well there was no one single cause but a multiplicity of factors that produced the catastrophic results.<br /><br />In my opinion the expedition was insufficiently prepared for what would happen if things went really&nbsp;wrong. Certainly the Admiralty's failure to plan for some sort of search if they had not heard from the expedition after X number of years speaks ill of them. And bluntly the expedition was too large. Its very size meant that if something went really wrong things would become disastrously serious. Smaller crew(s) would have made disaster easier to cope with. As it is they were trapped in the ice in a remote, very hard to get too region of the Canadian Arctic, and in an area that was sorely deficient in game and a region hard to get out of or into.31<br /><br />And of course a key element is the disaster was that Franklin thought that King William island was a peninsula. That being the case Franklin was forced to sail into the relentless ice stream that crashed into the north west coast of King William island. Thus locking them into the ice stream for two terrible winters and then forcing them to abandon the ships. If Franklin had known that the island was an island then he could have sailed down the east coast and avoided the ice stream entirely. Whether or not Franklin would have completed the voyage is another issue. The bottom line is that the Rae and Simpson straits on the eastern and southern coasts of King William island are difficult and treacherous, especially the Simpson strait. It is doubtful that the Terror and Erebus, not designed to manoeuvre in such waters could have done it. Has it is the Goja captained by Amundsen had really serious problems getting through the Simpson strait, running aground once, even though it was only 1/3 the size of either of Franklin's ships and far more manoeuvrable.32<br /><br />Despite that it is likely that some at least of Franklin's crew would have survived if Franklin had tried to sail around King William island even if the attempt had failed.<br /><br />That is just one of the many contingent factors that worked into creating the Franklin disaster. For that disaster has its appeal not just in that it failed but that in, it appears, everyone perished and that is why it continues to exert a fascination. It is the train accident in which everyone died.<br /><br />Not satisfied with the horrible completeness of the tragedy many have tried to explain it and sadly many of their explanations are little better than fantasy and in&nbsp;Cookman's case fantasy plays far to big a role in his otherwise good book.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GiV13SMa2xI/VxAwhgc8FOI/AAAAAAAAC7I/brWBDjfJndcoVSbDwHqj0UIR4hthGbVrACLcB/s1600/Manproposesgoddisposes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="145" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GiV13SMa2xI/VxAwhgc8FOI/AAAAAAAAC7I/brWBDjfJndcoVSbDwHqj0UIR4hthGbVrACLcB/s400/Manproposesgoddisposes.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Man Proposes God Deposes</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />1. See <a href="http://makinapacalatxilbalba.blogspot.ca/2009/07/glimpse-into-disaster-franklin.html">Here</a>&nbsp;and <a href="http://makinapacalatxilbalba.blogspot.ca/2009/09/peglar-papers-addition-after-posting-i.html">Here</a>.</div><br />2. Cookman, Scott, <b>IceBlink</b>, John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc, Toronto, 2000.<br /><br />3.&nbsp; See Berton, Pierre, <b>The Arctic Grail</b>, McClelland and Stewart, Toronto, 1988, pp. 147-341, for an overview of the Franklin Expedition and the Expeditions to find him. <br /><br />4. I will spare the reader any&nbsp;cites of the crack-brained stuff.<br /><br />5. See <b>CBC News </b><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lost-franklin-expedition-ship-found-in-the-arctic-1.2760311">Here</a>.<br /><br />6. There have been various explanations over the years but the prevalent tendency has been an attempt to find the one cause that destroyed them. See<br /><br />7. Cookman, p. 63.<br /><br />8. IBID, p. 62.<br /><br />9. IBID., p. 61<br /><br />10. IBID., p. 227-232.<br /><br />11. IBID., pp. 36-41.<br /><br />12. IBID., pp. 95-104.<br /><br />13. IBID, pp. 95, 99.<br /><br />14. IBID, pp. 113-114. Goldner's process involved using a nitrate of soda to raise the temperature from 212 F. to 250 F.<br /><br />15. IBID., p. 108.<br /><br />16. IBID, pp. 108-129.<br /><br />17. IBID.<br /><br />18. IBID., pp. 127-129, 132-133, 142-143, 150-151.<br /><br />19. For sheer speculation see IBID.,&nbsp;pp. 144-153.<br /><br />20. IBID., p. 145.<br /><i><br /></i>21. IBID., p. 149.<br /><br />22. IBID., Footnote 19. For a brief review of this theory see Lambert, Andrew, <b>Franklin: Tragic Hero of Polar Navigation</b>, faber and faber, London, 2009, p. 344.<br /><br />23. See&nbsp;IBID., pp. 186-195.<br /><br />24. IBID.<br /><br />25. See Lambert, pp. 347-349, Keenleyside, A., Bertulli, A. M., Fricke, H. C., <i>The Final Days of the Franklin Expedition: New Skeletal Evidence, </i><b>Arctic</b>, v. 50, (1997), pp. 36-46, and Beattie, Owen, Geiger, John, Frozen in Time, Western Producer Prairie Books, Saskatoon Saskatchewan, 1988, pp. 58-62, See also Beattie, Owen, <i>A Report on Newly Discovered Human Skeletal Remains from the Last Sir John Franklin Expedition</i>, <b>The Musk Ox</b>, No. 33, Winter 1983, pp. 68-77.<br /><br />26. Cookman, pp. 174-185.<br /><br />27. IBID., pp. 176-177.<br /><br />28. IBID., pp. 183-185.<br /><br />29. IBID., pp. 202-203.<br /><br />30. IBID., pp. 157-159. Perhaps the best example of Franklin bashing is Stefansson, Vilhjalmer, <b>Unsolved Mysteries of the Arctic</b>, MacMillan Co., New York, 1939, pp. 36-129.<br /><br />31. See Berton, Pierre, <b>The Arctic Grail</b>, McClelland and Stewart, Toronto, 1988, pp. 326-341, and Berton, Pierre, <b>My Country</b>, McClelland and Stewart, Toronto, 1976, pp. 181-182.<br /><br />32. Berton,1988, pp. 328, 543-544.<br /><br />Pierre Cloutier</div></div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-60720243684265957542016-03-30T21:45:00.000-04:002016-04-13T14:47:17.211-04:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="JA" style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="JA" style="font-size: x-small;"></span></span>Evasions</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: center;"><span lang="JA" style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="JA" style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: large;">De Man</span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span lang="JA" style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="JA" style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: large;">and&nbsp;</span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span lang="JA" style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="JA" style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: large;">Avoiding Responsibility</span></span></span></div></div><span lang="JA" style="font-size: small;"><span lang="JA" style="font-size: small;"></span></span><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-D3Flbz5aBnA/Vvx6YzPg2bI/AAAAAAAAC6s/sI-_mXA0QZYvh5I6NMAdh7vBhd7ECpIqg/s1600/DeMan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-D3Flbz5aBnA/Vvx6YzPg2bI/AAAAAAAAC6s/sI-_mXA0QZYvh5I6NMAdh7vBhd7ECpIqg/s320/DeMan.jpg" width="260" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Paul de Man</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />The late Paul de Man was one of the most influential Postmodernists.1 Paul de Man was born in and lived his early life in Belgium after World War II he moved to the USA where he taught at Yale University. Paul de Man's writing were rather turgid and difficult but beneath the verbiage we sometimes find stuff that is unintentionally revealing, such has this passage:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">Yet without this moment, never allowed to exist as such, no such thing as a text is conceivable. We know this to be the case from empirical experience as well: it is always possible to face up to any experience (to excuse any guilt), because the experience always exists simultaneously as fictional discourse and as empirical event and it is never possible to decide which one of the two possibilities is the right one. The indecision makes it possible to excuse the bleakest of crimes because, as a fiction, it escapes from the constraints of guilt and innocence. On the other hand, it makes it equally possible to accuse fiction-making which, in Holderlin's words, is "the most innocent of all activities," of being the most cruel. The knowledge of radical innocence also performs the harshest mutilations. Excuses not only accuse but they carry out the verdict implicit in their accusation.2<br /><a name='more'></a></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal">The above which is from de Man's most influential work, <b>Allegories of Reading</b>, which aside from being an example of the baffle-gaffle that de Man often engaged in, turns out to be revealing about de Man himself.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Why? Well because in 1987 a Belgian scholar doing research quite unexpectedly came across a large corpus of writings written by Paul de Man. What they revealed was shocking. In brief the discovery consisted of more than 200 articles de Man wrote for Belgic collaboratist Newspapers called <b>Le Soir</b> and <b>Het Vlaamsche Land</b>. De Man while writing for these papers wrote anti-Semitic pieces and in general wrote stuff celebrating German triumphs and voices support for German victory in the war.3 <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">After the war and while in USA Paul de Man then systematically covered up and lied about his activities during the war. De Man in effect suppressed as far as he was able knowledge of those thoroughly embarrassing articles that revealed him to be a collaborator with the Nazis. And not just a reluctant collaborator but an enthusiastic one.4<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Further after the war when de Man went to the United States he lied to get his initial teaching position at Bard College.5<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">It is now thought that to some degree de Man incorporated in his work to some degree excuses and rationalizations for his collaboration with the Nazi and his later self-serving lies.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">It is important to keep in mind that the above quote from de Man's book <b>Allegories of Reading</b> comes from a chapter called <i>Excuses</i>6 in a chapter that focused on Rousseau’s autobiographical work <b>Confessions</b>. Further the focus in the chapter is on excuse making and guilt although it is sometimes hard to figure out what de Man is in fact trying to say.&nbsp;</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">However here we have de Man saying something that reads like excuse mongering. After all saying that an event exists as fictional and actual at the same time and that it is impossible to tell them apart reads like an attempt to say "What I did may never have really happened!" Further the reference to the "bleakest of crimes" seems to refer to de Man's collaborationist past at least in part. Further thus these events being possibly "fictional" escape guilt and innocence and therefore of course de Man has no reason to feel guilty because the events he was involved with may be fictional and further he has no responsibility.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">If you add to this de Man's belief that authors were in some sense not responsible for the meaning of their texts, and in fact de Man's denial of authorial intent would seem to indicate at least in part de Man trying to deny responsibility for his collaborationist writings. The guilt that de Man talked about excusing is to some extent his own.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;Further de Man's comment that "it is not possible...” to decide if a particular experience is empirical or fictional is self evidently wrong. Why because we everyday make decisions about whether or not events, experiences are real or fictional. In fact if you couldn't do that you would not be able to function. And on a strictly prosaic level Judges in Courts of Law routinely decide what is empirical and what is fiction. So contrary to de Man it is often easy and is very routine to decide what is real versus what is fictional. So de Man is simply wrong to say that it is "never possible to decide which one of the two possibilities", i.e., empirical or fictional, some event etc., is. This is utterly and totally wrong. In fact it is done all the time.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Thus de Man in print contrived to escape responsibility for his acts in his writings. Of course the obvious question is, does this affect de Man's philosophy and work. Well not very much given that de Man's ideas must be analyzed in and of&nbsp;themselves and de Man's personal history is not very important in trying to figure out if de Man was right or wrong. In fact de Man's efforts to rationalize and avoid responsibility for his acts had only an at best minor effect on his philosophy. Post-Modernism can't be debunked simply because de Man was a&nbsp;slippery character and neither are his insights or theories refuted because it appears that in some respects Man was in his philosophy trying to justify his past bad behavior. In fact that motive seems to have been overall a minor point in "explaining" de Man's philosophy.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">If the defence of de Man had consisted of saying that de Man's philosophy and Post-Modernism are not in the slightest refuted by de Man being a person who did bad things there would not have been much of a problem; instead far too many Post-Modernists actually tried to explain away, unconvincingly, de Man's war writings further they abandoned the Post-Modernist notion that texts had a huge fluidity of meaning and authorial intent doesn't matter. Instead so many talked about de Man being misunderstood and distorted. Thus they in effect abandoned Post-Modernism when one of their gurus was attacked.7 They did this rather than just accept that all interpretations of de Man's writings were valid and no single one or set was correct which of course would have meant that interpreting de Man has a writing Nazi collaborationist crap was in fact utterly valid.&nbsp;</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">1. <i>Paul de Man</i>, <b>Wikipedia</b>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_de_Man">Here</a>. Paul de Man lived 1919-1983. See also Evans, Richard J., <b>In Defence of History</b>, Second Edition, Granta Books, London, 2000, p. 233. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">2. de Man, Paul, <b>Allegories of Reading</b>, Yale University Press, New Haven CONN, 1979, p. 293.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">3. Menand, Louis, <i>The De Man Case</i>, <b>The New Yorker</b>, March 24, 2014, at <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/03/24/the-de-man-case">Here</a>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">4. Evans, pp. 233-238, Menand.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;5. IBID., Menand.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;6. de Man, the chapter <i>Excuses</i>, pp. 278-301.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;7. Evans.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;Pierre Cloutier</div><span style="font-family: &quot;times&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"></span></div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-5817187410895126262016-03-13T23:29:00.002-04:002016-05-29T18:51:04.232-04:00<div style="text-align: center;">Causes of the</div><div style="text-align: center;">American Civil War</div><div style="text-align: center;">A Brief Note</div><div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kJvBjBYFsjw/VuYvj7toAqI/AAAAAAAAC6U/8Rmj6HoYmEgg2VFZX-9tuyJ1U6GCd3ZXQ/s1600/History_Civil_War_Battle_of_Fredericksburg_SF_still_624x352.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kJvBjBYFsjw/VuYvj7toAqI/AAAAAAAAC6U/8Rmj6HoYmEgg2VFZX-9tuyJ1U6GCd3ZXQ/s400/History_Civil_War_Battle_of_Fredericksburg_SF_still_624x352.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Image of Battle From the American Civil War</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Debates about the causes of the American Civil War have been going on since it was over and have not died down since it was over because sadly the causes of the American Civil War are not just past history they are also contemporary history and concerns.<br /><br />In the USA the past in terms of the Civil War resonates even now with the whole witches brew of contemporary issues; most especially those related to the issue of race.1</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">The result is that the causes of the American Civil War cannot be discussed without impinging on contemporary reality. However in many respects this is very much a post Civil War creation because before and at the time the Civil War was being fought there was little debate about the causes of the conflict.<br /><a name='more'></a></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">The modern debate about the causes of the American Civil War emerged in the aftermath of the conflict and originated from what can be called the poor South school of history. In this school of historical thought the idea was born that the Civil War was born out of Northern hatred of the South. In particular the fantasy was that New Englanders out of sheer malice against the South went out of their way to crush the South and destroy her. Thus the poor innocent South was a victim of the evil malicious hatred of New England. This theory / fantasy has it's believers to this day.2 According to this piece of paranoia things like slavery were mere thinly disguised excuses to justify a deep abiding hatred of the poor innocent South by a North led by a hate filled New England. </div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Thus the South was a poor calumniated, insulted section of the USA under constant attack and all of it's behaviour acts of desperate self defence.&nbsp; Aside from the transparent one sidedness of this mythos it achieves the obvious purpose of removing the dreaded issue of slavery from consideration except has a mere excuse by New Englanders to attack the poor South.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Also it replicates perfectly pre-Civil War arguments by many Southerners and pro-Southerner individuals that so-called attacks on the South were nearly entirely motivated by malicious hatred of the South and attacks on slavery were merely a screen for this hatred.3</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">The notion that emerged after the Civil War of the poor South went hand in hand with the rejection of the notion that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, or even a cause. Why? Well because defeat in the Civil War forever blackened the notion of slavery has a "good" thing and championing it after the Civil War was just unacceptable.4</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">So anything was given has a cause of the Civil War, Tariffs, States Rights, Northern hatred of the innocent South, irresponsible agitators etc. Thus there emerged a large school of so-called "Revisionists"&nbsp; who moved mountains in a desperate effort to avoid attributing the Civil War to slavery, mainly because slavery made the South look bad.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">This started right after the Civil War when former Confederate politicians carefully crafted apologias to justify and excuse their actions and of course blame a evil despotic North for crushing them. Thus we get Jefferson Davis' and Alexander Stephen's post war writings denying slavery was the cause or even a cause. It was according to them a mere excuse for the deeper, "truer" issue of States Rights.5 Those are just two examples of a huge flood of material making similar claims that issued from former Confederates. And it is all a collection of post-hoc lies.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">During and before the Civil War what did so many Southerners including those mentioned above talk about and dispute about and claim was the source of the dispute. Why slavery! Stephens in his infamous Cornerstone speech6 made it absolutely clear that the dispute was indeed about slavery and so do the various documents justifying succession issued by the different states that seceded from the Union. What so many of the former Confederate politicians etc., did after the war was over and they lost and slavery was discredited was to quite consciously and deliberately lie. And along with the lie that it wasn't about slavery but some absurd abstract principle they created the mythos of the poor victimized South which recapitulated pre-Civil War beliefs about the South under attack by a evil North and more especially a hate filled New England.7</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">All in a effort to remove slavery has a cause and to of course blacken their opponents in the struggle has hate filled, evil people motivated by jealous malice. If this acceptance and spreading pre-war polemic wasn't enough, along with the rejection of slavery has a cause there was added the fantasy that slavery wasn't so bad and nothing much to get excited about anyway.8</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Of course what makes this truly fascinating is that both in the North and South in the antebellum period there was the near universal belief that slavery was unfathomably wicked, a incredible abomination! There was a catch this only applied to White people. For Black people so many both North and South thought it was just fine, mainly because so many Whites, both North and South didn't think of Blacks has fully human. And bluntly that mindset existed in both North and South. Racism played a powerful role in preserving and maintaining slavery. If racism in the North had been significantly less opposition to slavery would have been much greater. And we read in the writings of the Confederate politicians after the war much that reflects this racist attitude even after slavery had been killed.9</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">The later Revisionists reflect this attitude, which amounts to slavery was nothing much to get excited about because it involved enslaving Black people, and that is just not worth getting excited about. This attitude invites well deserved contempt.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">And of course the purveyors of the poor South view of the crisis make every effort to blame the evil North. Thus Lincoln is blamed for starting the Civil War by manoeuvring the South to attack Fort Sumter. Like Lincoln put a gun to Jefferson Davis' head&nbsp;and forced him to order the cannon to fire on Fort Sumter. Nope; Davis did it of his own volition Lincoln didn't force him at all.10 Then there is the fantasy view that after the attack on Fort Sumter Lincoln should not have called on the states to provide troops to quell insurrection / rebellion. That this behaviour forced 4 states to join the Confederacy11&nbsp;and caused a bloody civil war. Utter nonsense. First of a nation state splitting up by definition creates the conditions for a civil war to start. Yugoslavia for example.12&nbsp;By seceding the South was risking a civil war, secondly since when is an armed response by a state to an attack somehow illegitimate?</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">By embracing succession the Southern states were deliberately courting civil war. But again the purpose of this type of fantasy is to turn the South into the victim of the evil North. But then the whole onus of this sort of thinking is to shift the blame onto someone else. So of course slavery must be down graded has a cause because a war in defence of that vile institution cannot in the post war situation be justified so it is magically wished away. And somehow the North must be blamed for the war itself when it is plainly obvious that there was joint responsibility.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">At the time the Civil War was happening it was clear to all that slavery was at the heart of the struggle and a reason&nbsp; if not the sole reason for the conflict. Before the war neither side made much effort to hide this fact. After the war it became politically and morally convenient to deny what was obvious before and during the war. So with the powerful assist of the fabrications / lies of surviving Confederate politicians the lie that slavery was not a "real" cause of the struggle was propagated and during the late 19th early 20th century with the so-called Revisionists propagandized for this erroneous notion.13</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One of the tropes of the Revisionists was the notion that irresponsible politicians whipped up animosity and thus created the situation that resulted in war. Thus in the Revisionistic school the wicked, irresponsible Abolitionists by their agitation created a defensive response by the South and disrupted sectional harmony. Also the Republicans whipped up hysteria over non-existent unimportant issues like slavery expansion. It was evil anti-slavery agitation that created the crisis and except for that terrible - out of the blue agitation harmony would have reigned.14</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Of course this approach largely ignored the hysterical Secessionists, (The so-called Fire Eaters.), of the South and of course served the useful purpose of shifting the blame to the evil North and once again it was the poor South being the innocent victim.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Of course what this approach amounted to was wishing that the 19th century never happened. The bottom line was Abolitionism and Anti-Slavery of some sort was a common belief and position in the Western World during the 19th century. British Abolitionism was quite similar to American for example. What the Revisionists were demanding was that a 19th century style Abolition movement not emerge in America and has such they were doing the equivalent of wishing that it not rain in a rain forest.15</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And what "provoked" the Abolitionists? Well the notion that slavery was headed for destruction, "naturally" and that in fact the Abolitionists by upsetting Southerners prolonged slavery's life is so much stuff and nonsense. Slavery in most of the South was a flourishing, successful institution generating vast wealth for the slave owners. They were holding on to it because it was making them wealthy and many others looked to owning slaves has a means of getting rich themselves. Except in a few parts of the South slavery was definitely NOT dying. In fact the disappearance of manumission societies in the South etc., had everything to do with the fact many, many people were getting rich off the system. In the South anti-slavery voices, even before Abolitionism were becoming quieter and quieter until they virtually ceased because the institution was making so many rich and powerful.16</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Abolitionist attack caused such upsets not so much because it insulted Southerner's sense of their Honour but because it was viewed as an attack on their pocketbooks and thus threatened to reduce the value of their present and future "investments". If slavery had been a declining institution it would not have provoked such a violent defence.17</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">To get to what provoked the Abolitionists? It was the survival, expansion and continued growth of the institution and the fact it looked like it would continue to expand and prosper into the far distant future instead of&nbsp;the gradual decline&nbsp;that had been hoped for several generations, that provoked the Abolitionists and that expansion etc., was in direct contradiction to one of the chief intellectual currents in the Western World of those times.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In other words Abolitionism in some form was virtually inevitable not some macabre accident and it was "provoked" by the survival and expansion of slavery in America.18</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">That so many Southerners were unwilling to part with so much of their material wealth or to undercut what they thought was the basis for their current and future wealth is hardly surprising so the willingness of Southerners to succeed and go to war had less to do with abstract principle and more to do with crass material concerns. Abolitionists were viewed as threatening their wealth and prosperity now and in the future. So they had to be silenced. Also the Republican party was threatening the wealth of Southerners by threatening the long range prosperity of slavery by it's credo of confining it to the states in which it was legal has of 1860.19</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The bottom line is that it was the survival and expansion of slavery in the USA that "provoked" the so-called "Abolitionist onslaught", and the Southern defence was so adamant precisely because the institution was so vibrant and successful at generating wealth. If the institution had been in decline the Southern reaction to Abolitionism would have been vastly less vehement.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But then the above has to be ignored in the traditional poor South view of the causes of the Civil War.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">None of the above should in anyway be taken to mean that the Civil War was inevitable. It most definitely was not. However some sort of sectional conflict over slavery was in my opinion virtually inevitable and not the result of "irresponsible agitators" or "reckless politicians". And to argue such is to argue against reality.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The poor South notion of the causes of sectional conflict and the Civil War needs to be retired forever it is both distorted and frankly a lie.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-10OJb4DT_VA/VuYv2sUhaVI/AAAAAAAAC6Y/c9W40H7WSNIAqt2okrPbpZqqYLEAJpf7Q/s1600/civil_war_1861-1865.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="263" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-10OJb4DT_VA/VuYv2sUhaVI/AAAAAAAAC6Y/c9W40H7WSNIAqt2okrPbpZqqYLEAJpf7Q/s400/civil_war_1861-1865.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">The Progress of the Union Armies During</span><br /><span style="font-size: small;">the American Civil War</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. See McPherson, James A, <b>Battle Cry of Freedom</b>, Oxford University Press, New York, 1988.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. See Fleming, Thomas, <b>A Disease in the Public Mind</b>,&nbsp;Da Capo, Boston, 2013, for an example of poor South mentality.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. IBID.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">4. See Dew, Charles B., <b>Apostles of Disunion</b>, University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville VA, 2001, pp. 4-21.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">5. See Stampp, Kenneth M., <b>The Imperiled Union</b>, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980, pp. 199 -211.</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">6. Which I talk about&nbsp;<a href="http://makinapacalatxilbalba.blogspot.ca/2009/08/blog-post_14.html">Here</a>. See also Stephens, Alexander Hamilton, <strong>A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States</strong>, 2 volumes, National Publishing Company, Philadelphia PA, 1868-1870, and Davis, Jefferson, <b>The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government</b>, 2 volumes, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1881.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">7. See Ashworth, John, <b>Slavery, Capitalism, and Politics in the Antebellum Republic</b>, v. 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, pp. 192-285, See also Footnote 5. Also Potter, David M., <b>The Impending Crisis</b>, Harper &amp; Row Pub., New york, 1976, pp. 121-144.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">8. See Stampp, <b>The Imperiled Union</b>, pp. 221-222.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">9. See Ashworth, v. 1, pp. 216-228.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">10. see Stampp, Kenneth M., <b>And the War Came</b>, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago ILL, 1950, pp. 272-288, and <b>The Imperiled Union</b>, pp. 163-188, and Potter, pp. 555-583.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">11. The four states were Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">12. See for Yugoslavia Rogel, Carole,&nbsp;<b>The Breakup of Yugoslavia and Its Aftermath</b><i>.</i> Greenwood Publishing Group, New York, 2004.<br /><br />13. See Footnote 5.<br /><br />14. IBID, pp. 218-220.<br /><br />15. IBID., pp. 223-224.<br /><br />16. IBID., pp. 228-230, Cooper, William J., <b>Liberty and Slavery</b>,<br />Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1983, pp. 223-247, and Huston, James L., <b>Calculating the Value of the Union</b>, University of North Carolina Press, Capel Hill NC, 2003. pp. 24-66.<br /><br />17. IBID, and Stampp, Kenneth M., <b>The Peculiar Institution</b>, Vintage, New York, 1956, pp. 383-418.<br /><br />18. Stampp, <b>The Imperiled Union</b>, pp. 223-231.<br /><br />19. See Cooper, pp. 248-281, Ashworth, John, <b>Slavery, Capitalism, and Politics in the Antebellum Republic</b>, v. 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007, pp. 145-172.<br /><br />Pierre Cloutier</div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-32973059037020003172016-02-27T22:55:00.000-05:002017-02-03T20:51:17.780-05:00<div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">A Battle Miss-Remembered</span></div></div><div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Poltava 1709</span></div></div><div><br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FEdVC616PM8/VtJW4KbzHbI/AAAAAAAAC6E/HfMMopw8xuI/s1600/Russian-Battle-from-Narva-to-Poltava-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="233" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FEdVC616PM8/VtJW4KbzHbI/AAAAAAAAC6E/HfMMopw8xuI/s400/Russian-Battle-from-Narva-to-Poltava-2.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Battle of Poltava</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In a previous post I mentioned and reviewed a rather unpleasant example of the bias of the Military Historian J. F. C. Fuller,1. Here I will discuss one of Fuller's less than stellar feats in the description&nbsp;of a decisive battle.<br /><a name='more'></a></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />In this case it is Fuller's description of the battle of Poltava in 1709.2 In that battle Peter the Great of Russia decisively defeated Charles XII of Sweden and a few days later captured the remnants of the Swedish army and thus firmly established Russia as a great power and ended Sweden's short career as one.3</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now Charles XII is usually thought of as a great military genius and his crushing defeat at Poltava came at the end of a truly spectacular series of campaigns which saw Charles repeatedly defeat much larger armies.4 Russia was at the time not taken all that seriously has a power and people were basically quite blown away by Charles' quite spectacular military successes.5</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Russia was meanwhile dismissed because of Charles' quite spectacular victory at Narva in 1700 during which a Swedish army outnumbered more than 4 to 1 crushed a much larger Russian Army.6</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Afterwards Charles turned his attention to Poland where he sought to dethrone the current Polish king Augustus II and replace him with his own candidate Stanislaus. This was probably a mistake in that Augustus was perfectly willing after a few defeats to make peace but Charles would settle for nothing less than Augustus being deposed.7 The result was that Charles was involved for years in a interminable war in Poland.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">In the meanwhile Peter recovered &nbsp;quickly from his disastrous defeat at Narva. And while Charles was campaigning in Poland Peter conquered much of the Swedish possessions in the southern Baltic. Including capturing Narva in 1704 and founding St. Petersburg in 1703 at the mouth of the Neva river.8</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">When in late 1706 Charles finally forced Augustus to agree to being deposed. Peter was not surprisingly, given Charles' truly remarkable military successes not willing to face him one on one and proposed negotiations. The only thing Peter was not prepared to give up was St. Petersburg and Russian access to the Baltic. Charles was however not willing to negotiate at all and sought to crush Peter.9</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Also Charles incredible military successes enabled him to raise the largest army of his career, (more than 40,000 men), in order to invade Russia.10</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Further Charles decided to forgo a campaign to regain the lost Baltic regions from Russia and instead decided to&nbsp;invade Russia and dictate peace.11</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Although Charles is considered a great military genius one of the most remarkable features of the subsequent prolonged campaign (1707 to 1709), is how Charles was basically outmatched and out manoeuvred and out thought etc., by Peter. I can't go into the details here but the end result was that Charles was isolated in the southern Ukraine with an army that had diminished by c. 1/2 over the winter, early spring of 1708 / 1709. Some of Charles' actions most notably a disastrous winter march played a powerful role in helping to deplete the Swedish army.12</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">The result was that at Poltava Charles endeavoured to get out of the dangerous strategic situation he was in by defeating the Russians. Instead Charles XII was defeated and few days later the remnants of his army was forced to capitulate. Charles escaping only with a small guard and some members of his entourage.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now Sweden's position of being a Great Power was to put it bluntly extremely fragile. The Swedish economy and population simply were woefully insufficient to support such a status. The result was that Sweden was heavily dependent on foreign help and in the years that Sweden was a Great Power only good luck and sheer chance prevented the collapse of Swedish power. Charles XI, Charles XII's father had early in his reign come very close to presiding over a disastrous loss of Swedish power. Charles XI spent much of the rest of his reign massively strengthening both the monarchy and the military power of Sweden, which he did with great success, and in diplomatic efforts to prevent the formation of a coalition against Sweden.13</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Swedish military power was bluntly extremely fragile. Unlike other great powers, one great defeat was enough to cause the collapse of the whole edifice. Which is what in fact happened. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In Fuller's description of the battle of Poltava it is important to remember that Fuller operated under certain assumptions that were to put it bluntly extremely dubious concerning Russia.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">First Fuller accepted throughout the three volumes of his series.14 That Europe was frequently under attack by Asiatics. Thus the battle of Salamis was a victory of Europe over Asia. In this conception Asia is cast has the non-European "other". A force of despotism and oppression. Asia is cast has the eternal enemy of Europe and an eternal threat to Europe.15 This vision is essentially dualistic and Manichean, with the Europeans cast has the sons of light against the&nbsp;Asiatics&nbsp;has the&nbsp;sons of darkness. Further Fuller basically dumps all Asiatics into the same stew as a undifferentiated Asiatic "horde". In this mythos small European armies are constantly besting huge Asiatic "hordes". It is a standard Eurocentric trope and myth.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Russia fits into this because Fuller thought of Russia has a Asiatic power that was a threat to Europe. Russia was in Fuller's mind a dangerous Asiatic power not really European but a vast existential threat to Europe. And Europeans had to be constantly on their guard against this vast dangerous, "other" that threatened to spread "Asiatic" domination over Europe. Thus Fuller's three books are full of passages that reflect a belief that Russia / Asia was / is&nbsp;an existential threat to Europe, a looming menace to the sons of light by the sons of darkness. Russia / Asia&nbsp;was / is&nbsp;the eternal "other" to Europe.16</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This of course affects Fuller's description of the battle of Poltava. We have to remember that Fuller views it as a contest between a small European army and a huge Russian Asiatic horde.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;Let us start with the question of numbers Fuller gives for the Russians the figure of 80,000 men which is a huge exaggeration.17 The actual figure seems to be between 32,000 - 42,000.18</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Then Fuller gives the figures for the Swedish army as 12,500 men.19 In actuality it appears that the Swedes had 17,000 - 20,000 men.20</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Even with the Russian figures reduced and Swedish figures increased to more accurate levels it still is the case that the Russians out numbered the Swedes more than two to one. But not satisfied with the actual odds Fuller tries to turn it into 12,500 against 80,000. The huge Asiatic Russian horde against the tiny European army. Instead of odds of c. 2.2 to 1 Fuller replaces it with odds of c. 6.6 to 1. Thus the forces of European civilization go down to defeat before the huge hordes of Asiatic despotism in a heroic desperate stand for Europe.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Having doubled the size of Peter's army and reduced the size of Charles army by 1/3 Fuller also engages in a bit of subterfuge with maps. The map Fuller uses to illustrate the battle of Poltava is to put it bluntly bad and overly schematic.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Here it is.22</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I3e3eEfYmUo/VtI5MkmwsfI/AAAAAAAAC5s/AheT2-41u7Y/s1600/poltava.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I3e3eEfYmUo/VtI5MkmwsfI/AAAAAAAAC5s/AheT2-41u7Y/s640/poltava.jpeg" width="406" /></a></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">A much more accurate map is from Massie.23</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dEccsIn1QDg/VtI6jIrz60I/AAAAAAAAC50/eC5Zrq5RxGc/s1600/thjaertja001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dEccsIn1QDg/VtI6jIrz60I/AAAAAAAAC50/eC5Zrq5RxGc/s640/thjaertja001.jpg" width="548" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The first map is obviously inferior to the bottom map in detail and accuracy but the first map with the huge size of the Russian camp serves to illustrate quite clearly the idea of the huge Asiatic Russian horde against the tiny European army.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As for the battle itself Fuller's description is not the best. To give an example Fuller describes the following:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">It would appear that immediately after this [The Swedish command forming up in front of the Russian camp.] there occurred the much disputed incident of the whole battle. While Roos was surrounded and Charles formed up in the plain, Lewenhaupt with the centre, broke through the lines of redoubts, entered the plain, and was about to advance against the western side of Peter's entrenched camp and storm it, when an order - so he says - from "a loyal servant of the King" to halt. though amazed and indignant, for he believed that he had victory within his grasp, he had no option but to obey it.24</div></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Well for one thing Peter ordered his troops to surround and crush Roos after Lewenhaupt's withdrawal not during it or before.25 For another the idea that Lewenhaupt with under 3,000 men could storm the Russian camp and rout the c. 25,000 infantry in there is absurd. Probably instead Lewenhaupt's infantry would have been cut to pieces.26</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Fuller again in pursuit of his idea of the huge Asiatic Russian horde claims that Peter led 40,000 men out of his camp to confront the Swedish attack of c. 4,000 infantry.27 With the casualties that the Swedes had suffered, (Including the complete destruction of the battalions commanded by Roos, c. 2,600 men.), it is possible the Swedish infantry numbered as little has 4,000 at this time. 28.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">However Fuller once again doubles the actual figure for the Russian. The actual figure was 22,-24,000 men with 70-100 cannon, not including cannon in the Russian camp.29</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Not content with the actual frightful odds against the Swedes Fuller turns 4-5 to 1 odds to 10 to 1 odds. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Not surprisingly, the rather hopeless, gallant&nbsp;and foolhardy&nbsp;Swedish attack&nbsp;was quickly and thoroughly crushed by the Russians.30</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Fuller gives the following figures for casualties. The Swedes suffered c. 3,000 dead and wounded and c. 2,800 prisoners. According to Fuller the Russians suffered 1,300 casualties.31 Well the figure for prisoners is accurate but the other figures are simply wrong. Firstly the Swedish army suffered at least 6,000 dead with another 1,500 wounded. How many were wounded among the Swedish prisoners is not known. As for the Russians they suffered 1,345 killed and 3,290 wounded, for a total of 4,635. Considering the size of the Russian army this was a crushing victory at&nbsp;a fairly moderate&nbsp;price.&nbsp;Thus excluding prisoners the Swedes suffered a minimum of 7,000 casualties. In fact the losses for the Swedes out of the original force that started the battle, 17-19,000 were at a minimum 9,800 over half of the force committed.32 The Russians had crushed the Swedish army and they shortly would capture the great majority of the rest of it.33</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If Fuller gets the number of&nbsp;Swedish prisoners right he gets the casualties of dead and wounded&nbsp;wrong. In fact his figure for the number of Swedish dead and wounded is well under 1/2 the actual casualties. How did Fuller do this? I don't have a clue, but then diminishing Swedish casualties could serve to deflect attention from how crushing the defeat actually was. Certainly Fuller seems to have read the figure of 1,345 dead for the Russians has total Russian casualties, not just Russian dead. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Thus in the end Swedish casualties were more than double Russian casualties and Swedish dead more than 4 times Russian dead. And if we take into account the different sizes of the Russian and Swedish army the difference in proportions is extreme with the Swedes suffering more than 4 times the proportion of the Russian losses. Victory is rarely has one sided as that. But it appears Fuller worked to make the victory less over whelming and one sided.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So it appears that Fuller distorted his account of the battle of Poltava at least in part due to a misleading mythos about Europe v. Asia and in part because of a misreading of the source material. The odds against the Swedes were formidable in reality but Fuller decided that wasn't good enough and produced this misleading account of the battle in the service of his ideological needs.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. See&nbsp;<a href="http://makinapacalatxilbalba.blogspot.ca/2009/02/j.html">Here</a>.</div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. Fuller, J. F. C., <b>A Military History of the Western World</b>, v. 2, Da Capo, New York, 1955, pp. 161-186.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. Frost, Robert I., <b>The Northern Wars</b>, Longman, Harlow, Essex England, 2000, pp. 294-296, Englund, Peter, <b>The Battle that Shook Europe</b>, I. B. Taurus, London, 2003, pp. 251-252, Anisimov, Evgenii V. <b>The Reforms of Peter the Great</b>, M. E. Sharpe, New York, 1993, pp. 123-139, Massie, <b>Peter the Great</b>, Random House, New York, 1980, pp.737-743.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">4. Fuller, pp. 163-168, Frost, pp. 226-277, Englund, pp. 35-41, Massie, pp. 312-354, 399-426.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">5. Massie, pp. 412-426.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">6. Massie, pp. 328-338, Frost, pp. 229-230.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">7. Massie, pp. 397-401, Frost, 263-271.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">8. Massie, pp. 355-366, Anisimov, pp. 95-103.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">9. Massie, pp. 421-422.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">10. Englund, p. 45, gives a figure of 38,000 for June 1708. If we include the 6,000 that joined Charles from the Baltic region you get 44,000 men. See Massie, p. 452-453 and Fuller, p. 171.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">11. Footnote 9.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">12. Fuller, p.173, Massie, pp. 467-478.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">13. Englund, pp. 112-14, Frost, pp. 208-223.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">14. Fuller, J. F. C.,<b> A Military History of the Western World</b>, v. 1, 1954, v. 2, 1955, v. 3, 1956, all published by Da Capo, New York.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">15. See IBID, v. 1, pp. 20-25, 26-52, 282-301, 335-350, v. 2, pp. 156-160, 221-242. For example.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">16. See IBID, v. 2, pp. 156-160, 184-186. In fact Fuller refers to the battle of Poltava has "...a trial of strength between two civilizations, that of Europe and of Asia.", (p. 184). See also v. 2, p. 541, v. 3, pp. 331-338, 339-340, 362-363, 539-542, 589, 631-634. In fact Fuller says, (In volume 3.), that:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">The Asiatic [The Russians] hordes are back in Germany, and this time they penetrated within the walls of Vienna. The wheel of history has turned full circle, and the threat that faces Europe to-day is not far removed from the threat that faced her in the days of Xerxes and Darius." (p. 634.)</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">and also Fuller says in v. 3:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">What these men recognized was that Russia has never belonged to Europe; her civilization owes nothing to Latin culture; she never took part in the crusades, the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Thirty Years War, and was unaffected by the discovery of the New World and the French Revolution. Since the battle of Poltava the Muscovites have been to Europeans "the Turks of the North" - the spearhead of the Asiatic threat to Europe. (p. 632)&nbsp;</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">All of the above is bluntly highly questionable to put it mildly but does give the flavour of Fuller's attitude &nbsp;towards Russia.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">17. Fuller, p. 174.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">18.&nbsp; Anisimov, p. 119 gives a figure of 32,000 Russians, Massie, p. 489 gives a figure of 42, 000. Englund's figures, p. 86, gives a total of 40,500 men for the Russian army. The figures in Konstam, Angus, <b>Poltava 1709</b>, Osprey, London, 1994, p. 64 and 72 are the same has Englund's figures.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">19. Fuller, p. 176.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">20. Anisimov, p. 119,&nbsp;gives a figure of 20,000, Massie, p. 490 gives a figure of 19,000 men, Englund figures, p. 86, gives a total of 17,000 men. The Figures in Konstam, p. 65 are the same has Englund's figures.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">21. Figures calculated by Author using Englund's figures.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">22. Fuller, p. 177.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">23. Massie, p. 488.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">24. Fuller, p. 180-181.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">25. Massie, pp. 498-499, Englund, pp. 108-124.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">26. Massie, pp. 497-498. See also Englund, pp. 108-110. Frost pp. 290-292 thinks that Lewenhaupt was right. Sadly Frost takes Swedish descriptions of panic in the Russian camp seriously&nbsp;neglecting that Russian sources do not support this.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">27. Fuller, p. 181.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">28. Massie, pp. 501-502, Englund, p. 143. Massie, p. 502 gives a figure for the Swedes of c. 5,000 infantry.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">29. Massie, p. 502, gives a figure of 24,000 and 70 cannon,&nbsp;Englund, p. 143, gives a figure of 22,000 and 100 cannon.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">30. See Englund, pp. 148-167, Massie, pp. 502-506.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">31, Fuller, p. 182.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">32, Englund, pp. 204-205, gives figures of &nbsp;gives figures of 6,900 dead 2,800 prisoners and 1,500 wounded, for a total of 11,200, Massie, p. 507,&nbsp;gives figures of 6,901 dead and wounded, (I suspect Massie counted the total Swedish dead has the total of dead and wounded.),&nbsp;along with 2,760 prisoners for a total of 9,661 which Massie rounds off to 10,000. Anisimov, pp. 122,&nbsp;says 9,000 swedes were buried on the battlefield. For Russian casualties. Englund, pp. 205-206 lists Russian casualties has 1,345 dead and 3,290 wounded, figures which are repeated by Massie, p. 507 and Anisimov p. 122.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">33. Englund, pp. 240-247.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Pierre Cloutier</div></div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-21997458079514211652016-02-15T21:18:00.004-05:002016-04-13T17:08:04.094-04:00<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Atlas Bored</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">to Tears</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_9zhPGMsVxU/VsKFxUwMeyI/AAAAAAAAC5U/MUqfMHszp1Q/s1600/662.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_9zhPGMsVxU/VsKFxUwMeyI/AAAAAAAAC5U/MUqfMHszp1Q/s400/662.jpg" width="251" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Book Cover</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">In My last post I made fun of a character in <b>Atlas Shrugged</b> by Ayn Rand. Surely one of the worst written novels ever excreted by an author. Here I will just make a few points about the philosophical centre of the novel. John Galt’s truly horribly written speech.1</div><a name='more'></a><div class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">An interesting aspect of Galt's speech is how it violates two things at once. Good writing and good oratory. I make the distinction because a speech that reads bad can be performed well if you know how to deliver a speech. Hitler is an outstanding example of this. In that Hitler's speeches, (The great majority of which he wrote or extemporized himself.), do not read very well and many come across has bad to mediocre. However Hitler was very effective at delivering a speech and even in the bad to mediocre to read speeches that comes across.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">However there is no indication, (I've just tried to read Galt's speech again I got about half way through before I gave out.), in what I've read that Galt can not effectively deliver a speech. In fact I have decided to not quote from John Galt’s speech given that it is boring repetitious, convoluted and frankly philosophically idiotic and turgid. It has all the literary excellence (sarcasm) of the novels of Harold Robbins and Jacqueline Susann. Although in fairness at least those two writers wrote badly in such a way it was fun to read their stuff. Ayn Rand’s novel is just painful and without a doubt the worst written part of the novel is Galt’s speech. The speech was intended by Ayn Rand to be the summation of her philosophy and a tour de force of her philosophical brilliance. However the speech didn’t do a good job of doing so.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Instead the speech comes across has violating the standards of good writing and oratory.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">1, The speech is way to long for the points that it is allegedly making.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">2. The speaker makes it absolutely clear that he has nothing but contempt for most of his audience.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">3. The speech is delivered it appears in a dull monotone it appears.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">4. The speech itself shows little colour, or variety.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">5. The speech is needlessly verbose.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">6. The speech has Galt talk much of the time in a convoluted, fake baffle-gaffle that serves to confuse and alienate listeners.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">7. The speech uses a special vocabulary, with words meaning not what people generally think they mean.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">8. Related to number 2 - the speech giver talks down to his audience.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">9. The speech is repetitious to a truly extraordinary extent.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">10. The speech is poorly constructed, not just with being repetitious, but poor word choice and a stream of uninteresting stream of consciousness style of speaking.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">11. The speech maker should know that uttering ever thought that comes into your head is not a good idea.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">As literature the Galt's speech is very poorly written, as oratory it is a disaster. I would suggest that the name Galt should be given to the amount of energy required to turn off 100 million TV sets and Radios at the same time.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">As for the argument itself - the amount of straw manning, argument by assertion, non sequiturs is amazing; so is the philosophical simple-mindedness of the speech.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Has either a piece of literature or oratory the speech is a stupendous failure.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aOFVTfxwS9Y/VsKGBs4vACI/AAAAAAAAC5Y/hWHcxjn8i5Y/s1600/atlas-shrugged.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aOFVTfxwS9Y/VsKGBs4vACI/AAAAAAAAC5Y/hWHcxjn8i5Y/s400/atlas-shrugged.jpg" width="266" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Movie Poster*</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">1. Rand, Ayn<b>, Atlas Shrugged</b>, Random House, New York, 1957. Galt’s Speech is the entire of Part III, Section 7, called “This is John Galt Speaking and runs over 60 pages in most editions. In my electronic copy it runs from p. 767-814. Or 47 pages of jammed together crowded paragraphs.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">* The three <b>Atlas Shrugged</b> movies are each very much like the book - a really bad piece of artistic excrement.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal">Pierre Cloutier<o:p></o:p></div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-29469865706732564162016-01-31T16:51:00.000-05:002016-03-14T11:55:36.283-04:00<div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee; font-size: large;">Lady Heather's Complaint</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;"><br /></span></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Pf1sx_cH3WA/Vq5_l6GNz9I/AAAAAAAAC44/3jIhcdsuU74/s1600/Melindaclarkehk6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Pf1sx_cH3WA/Vq5_l6GNz9I/AAAAAAAAC44/3jIhcdsuU74/s400/Melindaclarkehk6.jpg" width="300" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: small;">Lady Heather</span></div><div><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: small;">(Melinda Clarke)</span></div></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather&nbsp; was a character in the long running show <b>CSI. </b>She started out has a Dominatrix running a (legal) brothel in Nevada and ended up becoming a therapist. In the show she had various run ins with the regulars especially&nbsp; head honcho Grissom.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt is a character, Messiah, in that door stop of a novel <b>Atlas Shrugged</b>, written by Ayn Rand. The character is one of the ultimate Mary Sue creations aside from being one dimensional.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">I thought it might be fun to have the two characters meet.1</span><br /><a name='more'></a></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – Mr. Galt you were sent to me because it appears that you have serious psycho-sexual issues relating to domination and control along with serious issues of uncontrolled sadistic lust.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – You can call me John.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – Well John what do you have to say about this?</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Galt – I don’t know why they think I would benefit from any sort of sex therapy all I want is the triumph of rationality over irrationality. What does that have to do with sex?</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – Well for one thing Freud did have it right in that virtually anything could be sexualized. So what do you mean by “rationality”?</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – I saw the air quotes! “Rationality” isn’t so-called it is beyond personal taste and always the same for everyone.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – What you’ve just uttered is a common mistake of philosophical dilettantes. Who just assume that their particular interests are “rational” along with their satisfactions. This forgets that whether or not something is satisfying is very much a matter of taste and is in the end not “rational”.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – What I want is rational and that is that!</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – Having worked as a Dominatrix and a now as a Therapist I can tell you that the Sadists and Masochists I work with can be highly “rational” about their desires etc., and I myself see the "logic" and “rationality” involved. People like you will of course reject the “rationality” of these needs etc., on the grounds that it is “irrational”.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">But then like so many you do not seem to understand that “rationality” is basically, like logic, a thought process and not a goal or series of goals because in the end the goals are not rational and cannot be so.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Let me ask you a question John. Do you believe that accumulating possessions and / or producing “stuff” is generally a good thing or that say writing a novel etc., is a good thing if it produces satisfaction?</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – Well of course they are unlike being whipped or dominating someone. Yuck!</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – The fact that you find Sadism and Masochism personally disgusting only shows that you find them disgusting. The fact is people find them personally satisfying and pleasurable. Your disgust doesn’t make it “irrational” or at least anymore irrational than accumulating stuff. A Monk would view such personal accumulation as ‘irrational” and foolish, because his sense of what is satisfying personally is different.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – Getting more “stuff”, as you put it, is rational by definition.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – I see. Well let’s move on. It says in the report that you have serious issues involving wanting to dominate others.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – I don’t want to dominate others I just want everyone to be rational like me.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – Listen I have no problem with people dominating each other at least in a sexual situation so long as it is sane, and consensual. But what do you mean by “rational like me”? Do you mean they should rationally set out how to satisfy their needs and goals?</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – No! No! No!! Everybody should be just like me!!! That will be perfect rationality.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – So instead of everyone pursuing different goals, satisfactions etc., rationally it will be everybody pursuing the same “rational” goals and satisfactions the same way.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – There you go with the air quotes again. But yes that is exactly right and that way everybody who counts will be free by being just like me!</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – What do you mean by “everyone who counts”?</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – Rational human beings who can only be just like me.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – So what are those who are not “just like me”?</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – You do love the air quotes. I get the impression you don’t take me seriously. Well those who aren’t properly rational like me just don’t count.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – I’m finding this very disturbing, but let’s leave it for now. So what you are saying is that there is only one proper way for humans to be human?</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – Bingo!</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – But that is obviously false and pardon the expression “irrational”. So you think everyone should be like you?</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt. No I don’t think everyone should be like me.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – Whew!!</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – Only Rational people should be like me.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – Ugh! And everyone else?</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – Since not everyone is rational, everyone cannot be like me. And those who cannot be rational don’t count. In fact every “rational” person should be like me!</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – We will get back to the “don’t count” stuff later, but I noticed you said “should”. That seems to express a desire to control.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – I don’t want even rational men to be forced to be like me I just think that in order to be rational they should be like me. And I should also make every effort to ensure they are like me.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – you seem to have a rather constipated view of how control can be exercised; it can be by persuasion. But to move on. Do you think that “rational” men should be in control?</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – Well yes although it isn’t in control it just that rational men will be calling the shots, and everyone who counts will agree with them.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – So in other words “rational” men will agree with what you being a truly “rational” man will want and desire? Isn’t that clearly a desire to control others?</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – I really hate those air quotes. Stop it! What I want is for everyone to accept my hard perfect rationality inside their open, rational minds and thus creating many, many explosions of rational thought which doesn’t mean I want to dominate anyone and certainly despite your insinuations earlier has no sexual aspect to it.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – “Explosions of rational thought”!! What the…. It’s been a while hasn’t it?</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – I don’t know what your getting at. I’am just trying to explain that I’m not blowing it in terms of rationality.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – It’s pretty obvious you want to blow something.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – Sex! Sex! And sex!!! Is that all you think about?</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – Actually no. When I said earlier that virtually everything can be sexualized I didn’t mean everything was sex but that everything can be, in part at least, sex. Sometimes things are not sex. It is clear that the desire to dominate, control and change others often does have a sexual component and realising that is very important in terms of self-knowledge and personal development. Hiding it or denying it is self-deception and inauthentic and potentially quite damaging to oneself and others.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – Well what you just said denies that I am rational! You must hate life!!</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather - Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I hate life. It means I disagree with you.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – Yes it does!! You hate life! All those who disagree with me hate life!!</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – To get back to an earlier issue what about those who are not “rational”? What happens to them?</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – Nothing. They are ignored and everything is done to make sure they don’t interfere with rational people.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – How do you make sure they don’t interfere?</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – by taking away their ability to interfere. They will not in the slightest be able to, by any means, affect the lives of rational people. Thus the state, etc., will be controlled by us rational people and not by irrational people and every effort made to insure that it remains that way. After all those who don’t count should not be able to affect those that do count.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – What about consent. Shouldn’t those who are it appears to me controlled by others consent to such an arrangement?</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – They don’t count, their opinions, desires etc., are irrelevant. Their wants are nothing. Their consent irrelevant!</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – Your telling a former Dominatrix that consent is irrelevant? You should know that in a Master Slave relationship and in a BDSM scene it is the Slave who is in control and who sets limits. Consent most definitely matters. What your talking about is the fantasy of total domination in which the wishes of others don’t matter. Anyone who has such fantasies of domination in terms of a sexual / erotic encounter would be well advised to be very careful about getting involved in this area of fetish. They obviously have serious issues and could do a great deal of harm.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Most of the Sadists I worked with and in fact myself when I was a Dominatrix got pleasure etc., from giving the submissive pleasure not just from the act of domination / sadism. In fact a problem I have had to deal with is Sadists who went, inadvertently, too far and freak out because they did so. Actually hurting someone has against the ritual, play-acting harm they were doing, is profoundly unsettling to most of the Sadists I’ve dealt with; to say nothing of the harm to the submissive. If they don’t have a problem with really hurting someone they should not be involved in this period. In fact it is this possibility of inadvertent harm that is worth being kept in mind by anyone getting into this area.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">But what you are saying is that certain people have no right to oppose the will of others; that there is no safe word; that they don’t count. That they can be dominated and controlled by those who by a “rational” right to dominate; who can do has they please with them. That they are mere obstacles.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – God I hate those air quotes. Your being unfair. Keeping people down is not control if it is done by the right rational people.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – Well it seems to me that you have more or less admitted that you are engaged in a fantasy of total domination over mankind with lots of mankind just being there has garbage that can be treated in any old fashion, to satisfy a lust to dominate and control.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – No! No! No!!! It is all so rational.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – Further I suggest that this lust for domination and control, along with your quite inordinate sense of superiority, hides a deep seated desire to Masochistically submit. Which is something I find frequently in overt Sadists who seem to be entirely self-satisfaction centred and who respect no limits. They project onto others the desire / need to submit.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – Your wrong!!</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – I am going to break a rule of mine and suggest a few sessions of BDSM with me. Don’t worry I will be very careful but I suspect it will get a lot of the crap inside your head out.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – I’m leaving! Bitch!!</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – You will be back and in two weeks. Your type always is.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">John Galt – In your dreams!</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Lady Heather – Before you go may I suggest a safe word, or in this case phrase, “Who is John Galt?”</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;"><br /></span></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AF9PDWAJSKM/Vq6ATR49VkI/AAAAAAAAC5A/MHD7fELnD88/s1600/ayn-rand-wtl_big.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AF9PDWAJSKM/Vq6ATR49VkI/AAAAAAAAC5A/MHD7fELnD88/s400/ayn-rand-wtl_big.jpg" width="305" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: small;">Ayn Rand</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;"><br /></span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;"><br /></span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">1. I originally posted this mock conversation at <b>Daylight Atheism</b>, <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2016/01/atlas-shrugged-manifest-destiny/#disqus_thread">Here</a>. I have also discussed Ayn Rand before see <a href="http://makinapacalatxilbalba.blogspot.ca/search?q=Ayn+Rand">Here</a>.</span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;"><br /></span></div><div style="border-image: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font: 15px/21px &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: black; color: #eeeeee;">Pierre Cloutier</span></div><b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><br />Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-32506482342089447762016-01-04T20:59:00.002-05:002016-03-14T12:00:48.324-04:00<br /><div align="center" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: x-large;"><b>False Testimony?</b></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">&nbsp;<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kWiFvd5Uoa4/Vosi_8xDZ3I/AAAAAAAAC4Q/EB2QqEenHug/s1600/Josephus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kWiFvd5Uoa4/Vosi_8xDZ3I/AAAAAAAAC4Q/EB2QqEenHug/s400/Josephus.jpg" width="292" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Josephus</td></tr></tbody></table></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Debates about the existence of Jesus go back many centuries and one of the most commonly used pieces of evidence concerning the historical existence of Jesus is the so-called Testimonia of Josephus. It has been used repeatedly over the centuries to establish that Jesus was a real historical figure. The Testimonia occurs in two places in Josephus’ </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Antiquities of the Jews</span></b><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">, (18, 3, 3, and 20, 9, 1.)1.</span><br /><a name='more'></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The two Testimonia go as follows:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">(18, 3, 3.)</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">&nbsp;</span></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.2</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">(20, 9, 1.)</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.3</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The tone of the above passages, (18, 3, 3.), is problematic in so many ways. First there is no evidence that Josephus was a Christian and most commentators have accepted that at least the passage has been heavily corrupted. The early Christian thinker Origen, (More on that&nbsp;later on), for example expressly states that Josephus was not a Christian. The phrases "if it be lawful to call him a man", "He was the Christ" and are almost certain interpolations.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Further regarding the Testimonia of Josephus concerning Jesus. Well the general consensus is that at the very least Josephus' writings have been tampered with in one, (</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Antiquities of the Jews</span></b><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">, 18, 3, 3.), of the two places where Josephus mentions Jesus </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">&nbsp;</span></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">in his writings. The debate centers on whether or not this particular passage, (</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Antiquities of the Jews</span></b><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">, 18, 3, 3.), is a pious interpolation fraud or a partial one. In other words was the passage inserted in its entirety or whether a passage about Jesus was modified in order to make Josephus' description of Jesus fit Church dogma better. This debate has not by any means been settled. Making things difficult is that very few of the early Church Fathers, (Origen does&nbsp;allude to the passage.),&nbsp;even when they quote Josephus, and / or refer to him, quotes or even alludes to this passage. In fact the first&nbsp;to quote the Testimonia is the Church Historian Eusebius in the early 4th century C.E.,4 during the reign of Constantine the Great. And Eusebius' quote of the Testimonia is slightly different from the one we have. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Here is Eusebius’ version of the Testimonia (Antiquities of the Jews, 18, 3, 3.):</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">7. After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words:</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">&nbsp; </span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">“And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness. And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">8. When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him. For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him. Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him, continues down to the present day.”5</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The passage from, (18, 3, 3.), makes it seem that Josephus was a Christian. That however seems very unlikely. The Church Father Origen, (c. 180 – 250 C.E.)6 who refers to Josephus but specifically says7 he was not a Christian and yet if Josephus did in fact have the beliefs given in the Testimonia Josephus would have been a Christian.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Here are two references to Josephus in Origen’s writings:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the “Antiquities of the Jews” in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ.</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">&nbsp; </span></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.8</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">…</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">For in the 18th book of his Antiquities</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">&nbsp; </span></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless— being, although against his will, not far from the truth— that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),— the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">&nbsp; </span></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.9</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Thus is appears that there is indeed something wrong with the Testimonia of Josephus concerning Jesus. It is just about certain Josephus was no Christian but one of the passages attributed too him would make it appear so. So the likelihood is that the passage in question is corrupted with one or more interpolations.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Making the whole thing more difficult is that we have an Arabic version of Josephus, which does indeed have the testimonia only it is quite different from both Eusibius' and the version we have today. To keep it simple the Arabic version does not have the features friendly to Church dogma about Jesus that exist in the version we have today. I could also go into the Slavonic version but that would be tedious. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Here is the Arabic version of (18, 3, 3.):</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">At this time there was wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.10</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The Syriac and Slavonic versions are not much different.11</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Note in this version certain of the categorical statements like “He was the Christ.” are missing. Also missing is a statement that the Resurrection had really happened, instead it is reported has a story the Jesus’ disciples had said. Now this reads a lot more of what Josephus would likely have said.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The point is Josephus' Testimonia is a highly problematic piece of evidence. Rather interestingly the other passage in which Josephus refers </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">&nbsp;</span></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">to </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">&nbsp;</span></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">James "the brother of Christ" seems to be less problematic and likely authentic. This passage is overall considerably less problematic. Although there are those who regard the phrase " the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" as an interpolation. In which case it suggests that the other passage, (18, 3, 3.), may be at it’s core be authentic if corrupted.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">&nbsp;</span></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The Testimonia of Josephus is highly problematic and has been treated with justified suspicion for centuries. The bottom line is that at the very least the passage has been altered to fit better the Church consensus regarding Jesus and at worst the entire passage is spurious. </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">&nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">My opinion is that both passages in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, (18, 3, 3, and 20, 9, 1.), are corrupted to some extent, although passage 18, 3, 3, is significantly more corrupted than passage 20, 9, 1. I do think that Josephus did in fact in the original mention Jesus in 18, 3, 3, and James has the brother of Jesus in 20, 9, 1. However both passages are so corrupted has to make reasonable people reasonably consider the possibility those passages are entirely spurious .</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">As to the question of whether or not Jesus ever existed. I frankly think the mythological Jesus&nbsp; idea is nonsense. I may later go into this in more depth. Jesus almost certainly existed and frankly the Testimonia doesn’t really advance the matter one way or the other. All it could indicate is that Josephus was familiar directly or indirectly with Christians and heard the story of Jesus from them.</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">&nbsp; </span></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">So frankly discrediting the Testimonia doesn’t advance the mythological Jesus idea anymore than crediting the Testimonia would&nbsp;discredit it.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The whole question of whether or not Josephus ever wrote the passage about Jesus, or any part of it is still subject to vigorous debate. However the consensus does seem to be that at least the earlier passage describing Christ's death is almost certainly corrupt if not a complete fake created by later writers to advance Christian interests.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">1. The numbers refer to book, chapter and then section.</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">&nbsp; </span></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Antiquities of the Jews</span></b><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"> can be found at <b>Sacred Texts</b>, </span><a href="http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/#aoj"><span style="color: blue; font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">. Passage 18, 3, 3, can be found </span><a href="http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm"><span style="color: blue; font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">. Passage 20, 9, 1, can be found </span><a href="http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-20.htm"><span style="color: blue; font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">2. </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Antiquities of the Jews</span></b><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">, 18, 3, 3, </span><a href="http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm"><span style="color: blue; font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">3. IBID, 20, 9, 1, </span><a href="http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-20.htm"><span style="color: blue; font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">4. Eusebius, </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Church History</span></b><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">, Book 1, ch. 11, s. 7-8, </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">New Advent</span></b><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"> </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm"><span style="color: blue; font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">,. See also Eusebius, </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The History of the Church</span></b><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">, Penguin books, London, 1965, Book 1, ch. 11, pp. 29.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">5. IBID, </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">New Advent</span></b><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">6. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Origen</span></i><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">, </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Wikipedia </span></b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen"><span style="color: blue; font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">7. See Origen, </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Commentary on the Gospel of Mathew</span></b><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">, Book 10, s. 17, </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101610.htm"><span style="color: blue; font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">, and </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Contra Celsus</span></b><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">, Book 1, s. 47, </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm"><span style="color: blue; font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">8. IBID, </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Commentary….</span></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">9. IBID, </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Contra Celsus</span></b><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">10. Whealy, Alice, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic</span></i><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">, </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">New Testament Studies</span></b><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">, v 54, pp. 573-590, at 574.)</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">11. IBID.</span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Pierre Cloutier</span></div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-81461307549584011952015-12-25T23:05:00.000-05:002016-02-15T21:38:25.006-05:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Merry Christmas</b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>and a</b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Happy New Year!!</b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PilR-VqAWVk/Vn4RuQpbCuI/AAAAAAAAC4A/eU8TD6Bb7eE/s1600/TheStarofBethlemem_Nova.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PilR-VqAWVk/Vn4RuQpbCuI/AAAAAAAAC4A/eU8TD6Bb7eE/s400/TheStarofBethlemem_Nova.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Pierre Cloutier</div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-63182637451294364822015-01-31T20:30:00.000-05:002015-02-04T18:56:47.648-05:00<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Waterloo<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Some Notes<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-02e8_urR2UQ/VM2AWTzeTHI/AAAAAAAAC2Q/0U7dFdRFtIo/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-02e8_urR2UQ/VM2AWTzeTHI/AAAAAAAAC2Q/0U7dFdRFtIo/s1600/images.jpg" height="266" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Battle of Waterloo</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The battle of Waterloo is one of the most analysed, or more accurately over analysed campaigns and battles of all time. In fact we have an incontestable surfeit of accounts of the campaign and battle.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;">The great military historian J.F.C. Fuller has it largely right when he says:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Waterloo Campaign has been so thoroughly investigated and criticized that the errors committed in it are apt to appear exceptional and glaring. They were not, they were the usual errors found in most campaigns.1<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The chief reasons that the campaign generated such a storm of writing were that it ended the career of one of the greatest of military leaders of all time and further that it brought into conflict the two most capable military leaders of the time. In this case Napoleon and Wellington.</span></span><a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">That Napoleon went down in defeat before Wellington is the most common theme of discussions of the battle. It is however quite wrong. In much of the literature it is forgotten that Blucher the commander of the Prussian Army, was responsible for Napoleons defeat. In fact English language books about the battle tend to significantly down play Prussian involvement in the battle. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">What this ignores is that without Prussian intervention Wellington would almost certainly have been defeated at Waterloo. As it was it was a close run thing and victory was only very narrowly achieved.2<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">When the battle started Napoleon had c. 74,000 men and Wellington 68,000 men.3 normally given the Duke of Wellington’s defensive tactics and his excellent defensive position, and near equality of numbers this should have enabled Wellington to hold his position without difficulty. However not only was Wellington facing the greatest military mind of the time, Napoleon, but his army in terms of quality was significantly inferior to Napoleon’s. In fact the inferiority was such that Wellington, well aware that his army was significantly outclassed only accepted battle on the promise from the Prussians that a significant number of Prussians would intervene on the day of battle. Otherwise Wellington felt he would be inevitably defeated.4<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The fact is both Wellington and Blucher had been caught with their pants down by Napoleon’s campaign. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">After Napoleon had reestablished his rule of France at the beginnings of the Hundred Days, he was faced with a significant dilemma. Napoleon’s reestablished rule was precarious in France. Large sections of French opinion to say nothing of certain districts, such as the Vendee&nbsp;rejected his rule and mistrust of his aim was widespread. So was the desire not to engage in another round of wars with an enemy coalition. That the other European great powers distrusted Napoleon was not surprising, so was their refusal to talk to him and to declare war on him.5<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The resources that the allies could apply against France were overwhelming, in effect over a million men. War weary and at least practically mistrustful France could at best come up with ½ that and that was being very optimistic.6<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Waiting around for the allies to invade was just waiting around to have a repeat of the 1814 campaign in France with numbers eventually delivering victory to the allies.7<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Not surprisingly Napoleon decided to be proactive.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Napoleon decided that he had to attack first. The nearest allied armies were Blucher’s and&nbsp; Wellington’s in Belgium.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">So in great secrecy Napoleon concentrated an army near the Belgium border near the junction between Blucher’s and Wellington’s army. Napoleon’s campaign plan was simple. It was to drive between the two allied armies and defeat each in turn driving them both out of Belgium and hopefully securing by this enough time for Napoleon to secure the resources and support of France and perhaps causing the collapse of the allied coalition.8<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">As mentioned above both Wellington and Blucher were completely caught out by Napoleon’s attack and had difficulty concentrating their forces to oppose Napoleon. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The result was the confused battles of Quatre Bras and Ligny. Because the allied commanders were caught by surprise both of them had severe problems concentrating their forces and basically sent their forces piece meal into battle. This was especially true of Blucher whose conduct of the battle was ham-fisted and uncoordinated. Napoleon was in direct command of the forces opposing Blucher and basically had Blucher dancing to his tune throughout the day.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Wellington meanwhile was busy gathering up his forces and fighting forces under the command of Ney at Quatre Bras. Ney handling of his forces was clumsy but still he came close to defeating Wellington and Wellington was fortunate in getting a stalemate.9<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Napoleon was able to inflict a serious and possibly fatal defeat on Blucher. In fact the chief mess up of the day on the French side was the confusion regarding d'Erlon's &nbsp;corp. that spent the day marching and counter marching between Ney’s forces and Napoleon’s and as a result had no impact on either battle.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">In fact if Ney had had d’Erlon’s corp. he probably would have defeated Wellington and if Napoleon had had d’Erlon’s corp. the result would have been a crushing defeat of Blucher rather than Blucher’s severe defeat.10<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Still Blucher’s army was defeated and Wellington was faced with the prospect of facing Napoleon by himself. Not surprisingly the prospect, especially given the quality of his army, filled Wellington with dread. So not surprisingly Wellington withdrew the day after the battle. Whether or not Wellington would accept battle depended on whether or not he could get any support from the Prussians.</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p><br /></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Here luck came to Wellington’s rescue. Blucher had been nearly killed / captured by the French in the early evening at the end of the battle of Ligny and was unable to command his army. Blucher’s Chief of staff decided to fall back on Wavre rather than further east. If the defeated Prussians had fallen back further east they would have been unable to lend any support to Wellington.11<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Wellington on the 17<sup>th</sup> of June, (The day after the battle of Ligny and Quatre Bras), was informed that the Prussians could support him with his minimum demand of at least one Prussian corp.12<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Napoleon now made his most disastrous decision of the campaign. Instead of concentrating all of his available forces against Wellington; Napoleon sent 1/3 of his army to pursue the Prussians.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Now Grouchy the commander of the forces sent against the Prussians has received a lot of blame for losing the battle for Napoleon, for not marching to the sounds of guns at Waterloo. The criticism is unfair. The bottom line is that Napoleon’s orders on any reasonable interpretation did not allow for Grouchy to do this without disobeying orders. So if anyone one is to blame for Grouchy’s refusal to march too Napoleon’s assistance it should be Napoleon.13<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The result of Napoleon’s refusal to concentrate his army against Wellington was that instead of a significant superiority of numbers over Wellington’s army he had only a very slight superiority of a few thousand.14<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Wellington meanwhile had done something that greatly helped Napoleon. Since the beginning of the campaign Wellington had been inordinately concerned and convinced that Napoleon would seek to out flank him by seeking to cut him off from the Belgian seaports. That this merely would drive Wellington into the arms of the Prussians and thus would have been the last thing Napoleon wanted seems to have entirely passed Wellington by. The result of this foolish belief was that Wellington left 17,000 men in the town of Hal a full day’s march from the battlefield of Waterloo because he thought Napoleon would try to outflank him by cutting him off from the coastal ports.15.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Thus Wellington had a slight inferiority of numbers to Napoleon and almost lost Waterloo. As it is only the arrival of the Prussians saved Wellington from defeat.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Much has been made of the alleged effects of rainfall in terms of slowing down the French and delaying the start of the battle. This is little more than excuse hunting. The rain also slowed down and affected the British and Prussians also so that in effect in terms of affecting the outcome the effects cancelled each other out.16<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Both sides had made serious mistakes but in the end the British and Prussians were able to concentrate the bulk of their forces at the decisive battlefield and Napoleon was not able to do so and so he lost.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">At another point I may discuss the actual battle itself.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 4.5pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">1. Fuller, J. F. C., <b>A Military History of the Western World</b>, v. 2, Da Capo, New York, 1955, p. 492.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">2. IBID, pp. 540.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">3. IBID, p. 524, Schom, Alan, <b>Napoleon Bonaparte</b>, HarperPerennial, New York, 1997, p. 751. Note Fuller gives Napoleon c. 71,000 men and Schom gives Wellington c. 74,000 men.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">4. Fuller, p. 517.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">5. Barnett, Correlli, <b>Bonaparte</b>, Hill and Wang, New York, 1977, pp. 201-203, Schom, pp. 718-727.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">6. IBID.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">7. Chandler, David, <b>The Campaigns of Napoleon</b>, MacMillan Pub. Co. Inc, New York, 1966, pp. 1015-1018, Fuller, pp. 498-499.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">8. IBID, Fuller, Chandler, pp. 1016-1020.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">9. Fuller, pp. 510-514, Schom, pp. 747-749, Chandler, pp. 1052-1057.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">10. IBID.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">11. Fuller, p. 517, Chandler, pp. 1057-1058, The Prussian commander who gave the command was Gneisenau.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">12. Footnote, 4, Chandler, 1057-1058.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">13. Fuller, p. 520, Barnett, p. 208. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">14. Footnote 3.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">15. Fuller, p. 524, Chandler, p. 1066.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">16. Fuller, pp. 518, 519. With all due respect to Fuller the fact is the wet weather also impeded the allies especially the Prussians marching to support Wellington on the day of the battle of Waterloo June 18<sup>th</sup>. See Barnett, p. 208.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Pierre Cloutier</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-72659184324910107972014-12-31T19:01:00.001-05:002014-12-31T19:02:09.107-05:00<div align="center">Last Thoughts of the Year 2014</div><div align="center">&nbsp;</div><div align="center">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Well I'm glad this year is over and a new one is beginning.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Pierre Cloutier﻿</div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-33361745530300023662014-11-30T17:07:00.000-05:002015-02-04T18:57:39.080-05:00<div align="center"><span style="font-size: large;">Some Art</span></div><div align="center">&nbsp;</div><div align="center">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Here are some pictures of some art I saw in New York City.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;</div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yGVDKOGkLDk/VHuQX_nnzQI/AAAAAAAAC0c/yQNlj0c_1cs/s1600/DSCI0045a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yGVDKOGkLDk/VHuQX_nnzQI/AAAAAAAAC0c/yQNlj0c_1cs/s1600/DSCI0045a.jpg" height="216" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Greek Vase</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Showing Orestes murder of Clytemnestra</span><a name='more'></a><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8Bu-1z5q_8s/VHuQXHz6oXI/AAAAAAAAC0Y/fH_GXgiUvtk/s1600/DSCI0063b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8Bu-1z5q_8s/VHuQXHz6oXI/AAAAAAAAC0Y/fH_GXgiUvtk/s1600/DSCI0063b.jpg" height="320" width="156" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Statute of Venus</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Roman period</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KKMpQWEyG_E/VHuQXfCumtI/AAAAAAAAC0s/4y5vq_wskNM/s1600/DSCI0080b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KKMpQWEyG_E/VHuQXfCumtI/AAAAAAAAC0s/4y5vq_wskNM/s1600/DSCI0080b.jpg" height="276" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Bust of Marcus Aurelius</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DwUfzMGmakM/VHuQYKC8qiI/AAAAAAAAC0k/grByCTssHHM/s1600/DSCI0089a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DwUfzMGmakM/VHuQYKC8qiI/AAAAAAAAC0k/grByCTssHHM/s1600/DSCI0089a.jpg" height="320" width="279" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Peruvian drinking vessel</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Wari? period</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-w6uZ33PM4mo/VHuQY9FlRGI/AAAAAAAAC04/QQoeJV9nNr8/s1600/DSCI0123a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-w6uZ33PM4mo/VHuQY9FlRGI/AAAAAAAAC04/QQoeJV9nNr8/s1600/DSCI0123a.jpg" height="223" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Medieval Church Alter decorations</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="font-size: large;">﻿</span><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ArsqCtd6QS0/VHuQZOzCPII/AAAAAAAAC0w/l1lDUGLYFtE/s1600/DSCI0134a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ArsqCtd6QS0/VHuQZOzCPII/AAAAAAAAC0w/l1lDUGLYFtE/s1600/DSCI0134a.jpg" height="257" width="320" /></span></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Reconstructed Ancient Egyptian Shrine</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: large;">﻿</span><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AkbxprbPgUc/VHuQZ7W32KI/AAAAAAAAC1A/ezShM_mVGGE/s1600/DSCI0154a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AkbxprbPgUc/VHuQZ7W32KI/AAAAAAAAC1A/ezShM_mVGGE/s1600/DSCI0154a.jpg" height="188" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Death of Socrates by David</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y5CuBMUVocE/VHuQZxAz_xI/AAAAAAAAC1s/2PGfMDmLsVA/s1600/DSCI0160a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y5CuBMUVocE/VHuQZxAz_xI/AAAAAAAAC1s/2PGfMDmLsVA/s1600/DSCI0160a.jpg" height="209" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Portrait of&nbsp;Michelangelo</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-j0jjcba_Wt4/VHuQaB4VbOI/AAAAAAAAC1E/8QMCmujdLxc/s1600/DSCI0170a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-j0jjcba_Wt4/VHuQaB4VbOI/AAAAAAAAC1E/8QMCmujdLxc/s1600/DSCI0170a.jpg" height="320" width="236" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Man Pointing by <span class="artist">Alberto Giacometti</span></span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iLU2jFxXPbw/VHuQa7UuJAI/AAAAAAAAC1M/7mrew5lEj1o/s1600/DSCI0176a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iLU2jFxXPbw/VHuQa7UuJAI/AAAAAAAAC1M/7mrew5lEj1o/s1600/DSCI0176a.jpg" height="210" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">le faux miroir by Rene Magritte</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ijVBCDj3VfM/VHuQa9PtWII/AAAAAAAAC1c/MiWzNHBMzBc/s1600/DSCI0182a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ijVBCDj3VfM/VHuQa9PtWII/AAAAAAAAC1c/MiWzNHBMzBc/s1600/DSCI0182a.jpg" height="222" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">A Dali</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">&nbsp;</div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cSSoFUg6WNQ/VHuQbhzkICI/AAAAAAAAC1k/WaBZniWDLRA/s1600/DSCI0189a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cSSoFUg6WNQ/VHuQbhzkICI/AAAAAAAAC1k/WaBZniWDLRA/s1600/DSCI0189a.jpg" height="219" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">A Matisse</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-swijMNOi6R0/VHuQcYeCTkI/AAAAAAAAC1w/0bSwpFEgsvg/s1600/DSCI0207a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-swijMNOi6R0/VHuQcYeCTkI/AAAAAAAAC1w/0bSwpFEgsvg/s1600/DSCI0207a.jpg" height="206" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Christina's World by Alexander Wyeth</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: justify;">﻿</div><div style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Pierre Cloutier</span></div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-44780241569137137852014-10-29T22:38:00.001-04:002014-11-24T21:14:16.154-05:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Journalism as It Should Not Be</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Janet Malcolm and Jeffrey MacDonald</span><br /><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZaiNTTol8Dk/VFGi2YTUivI/AAAAAAAAC0A/QE-U6LpECYI/s1600/untitled.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZaiNTTol8Dk/VFGi2YTUivI/AAAAAAAAC0A/QE-U6LpECYI/s1600/untitled.png" height="400" width="266" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Janet Malcolm</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">﻿</span><br /><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;">The following is an expansion of a comment I made of an article I founded at the</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Los Angles Review of Books</span></b><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;"> website by</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;">Jess Cotton.1</span><br /><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">In the review Mr. Cotton examines several books by Janet Malcolm that touch on legal matters and shows a starry eyed, fan worship of Ms. Malcolm. Here I will only discuss Mr. Cotton’s treatment of the case of Joseph McGinniss and Jeffrey MacDonald. 2</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">The case involved a Jeffrey MacDonald, Doctor, who in 1969 murdered his wife and his two daughters, (Or so a Jury later found.); he was not tried until 10 years later but he was convicted. During his trial Jeffrey agreed to let writer Joseph McGinniss access to his person and to be present at defence meetings etc, further after his conviction Mr. MacDonald agreed to continue to allow McGinniss ample acesss.3</span><br /><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">All was for naught because McGinnis when he published the book concluded that Jeffrey MacDonald was guilty and said so in his book.4</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Mr. MacDonald was outraged and sued for breach of contract. The result was a law suit that Janet Malcolm described in her book.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: large;"></span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Below is my comment too which I have amended with some additions.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">What a shoddy review. Aside from as per usual ignoring the large body of physical evidence that points straight to MacDonald. All those PJ<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>fibers in all the wrong places for MacDonald's story to say nothing of the blood evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>For decades MacDonald groupies have been using the contradictory, retracted and asserted confessions of Helena Stoeckley, (A witness of zero credibility due to high suggestibility and extreme drug and alcohol abuse.), to accuse her and a group of “Hippies” of being responsible for the murders. The fact that not a stitch or stick of physical evidence has ever been found of said home invaders has not discouraged MacDonald fans. We could go into the lack of evidence for the struggle in the living room that MacDonald alleged happened; and of course the DNA evidence that excluded Stoeckley and her boyfriend Mitchell from the crime scene. Interestingly a hair clutched in Colette's hand and for years branded by the MacDonald's as a hair of the real killer was indeed sourced by DNA and it was from MacDonald!4</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">We also know now that Bernie Segal, MacDonald’s defence Attorney lied to Judge Dupree during a Bench Conference about Stoeckley <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>telling him earlier about being at the scene of the murders. As for Blackburn's ethical violations and embezzlement it is of no relevance whatsoever in judging his handling of the MacDonald case but serves the useful purpose of poisoning the well. It is nothing more than an irrelevant <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>ad hominem .Thus the feeble attempt to make it equal to the lies and fabrications of Britt creating a false equivalency. It is a standard polemical rhetorical trick. In the case of Britt’s lies they are directly germane to his claim that he heard Helena Stoeckley confess to being at the murder scene while the murders were committed. Supposedly Helena made this confession while Britt was driving her for several hours&nbsp;to a court house. The evidence shows that Britt did not drive Stoeckley someone else did along with other fabrications. Also if you want to poison the well it appears Britt engaged in it appears in a type of fraud also.5</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">As for your dismissal of McGinniss' psychologizing MacDonald. Well I am sorry but it is a documented fact that he was compulsive womanizer, who was planning a bogus trip as an excuse to have an affair at the time of the murders. It is a simple fact that he repeatedly and compulsively broke his married vows during the marriage. It is a fact that until his trial in the late 70s he led a "high" life. Further argument that Freddy turned against him after MacDonald's lie about torturing and murdering one of the alleged killers is simply false. Freddy Kassab, (MacDonald’s Father in Law.), was already very suspicious after reading the Army tribunal transcripts, (Which Macdonald tried to stop him from getting.), in which Freddy could read over and over again MacDonald's transparent lies; Freddy became very suspicious of MacDonald. MacDonald's crass appearance of the Dick Cavett show further cemented Freddy's suspicions. That and MacDonald's total disinterest in finding the "real" killers did not help. The lie about killing one of the killer's was simply the cherry on top for a man already largely convinced of MacDonald's guilt.6</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">As for Janet Malcolm. I have zero respect for this manipulator, liar and distorter. Her books are entertaining novels. Frequently they are little better than studied character assassinations. Her book<strong> In the Freud Archives</strong>, which resulted in a convoluted libel case, revealed her capacity to invent and fabricate. You see Dr. Masson had seen fit to criticize St. Freud who is the object of awestruck worship by Malcolm so she subjected him to idiotic lambasting. Of course she got off in the end because "malice" could not be proved. But abundant evidence was led showing her to be a producer of fiction and fantasy.7</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">In the Freud Archives</b>is basically worthless except as the work of a Freudian acolyte reacting to someone committing the terrible crime of blasphemy&nbsp;in being a&nbsp;less than an&nbsp;abject worshipper of St. Freud. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>Janet Malcolm has remained dogmatically incapable of taking in the massive, and relevant criticisms of Freud that exist and have thoroughly undermined the scientific credibility of Freud’s work. In regards to Freud Janet Malcolm remains a fanatical true believer.8</span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Her book about McGinniss and MacDonald carefully omits from consideration that MacDonald lied to McGinnis when he told him he was innocent, (The evidence of his guilt was and is overwhelming), and that certainly showed that MacDonald broke an unspoken rule between journalists and their sources. McGinniss made no promise that he would write a story showing that MacDonald was innocent to MacDonald only that he would write a fair story. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Fatal Vision </b>does just that. That MacDonald doesn't like the conclusion McGinniss draws is neither here nor there. Since Malcom is no stranger to fabricating crap herself one would think she would be less a judgmental twerp.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">And of course like a novel the “facts” of real life are played fast and loose with by Malcolm and in this her behavior was similar to the “facts” of <strong>In the Freud Archives</strong>. Perhaps the most egregious distortion is Janet Malcolm’s description of the law suits outcome. Now it is important to remember that Janet Malcolm did not attend the trial for even a few minutes instead she seems to have accepted virtually everything said by MacDonald’s attorney regarding what happened has gospel. Thus Janet Malcolm pontificated about how this or that witness was or was not impressive etc., all without the difficulty of having been there.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Thus Janet Malcolm alleges that 5 of the 6 Jurors accepted MacDonald’s version of events that McGinniss had deceived him. The 6<sup>th</sup>Juror could not be budged and the result was a hung jury. So the case ended in as mistrial. This is false the question the jury was asked was whether or not MACDONALD had carried out properly the duties<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>his contract with McGinniss. Since the Jury was told to ignore certain pieces of relevant evidence, (The releases MacDonald had signed being one.), 5 of the 6 voted yes that MacDonald had fulfilled the terms of the contract. One said MacDonald had not. And since they could not agree on that question the jury could not proceed to the other 36! So mistrial.8 This is only the worst of a long list of errors, omissions and falsehoods in Janet Malcolm’s book.9</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">I note that Janet Malcolm seemed to have had absolutely no problem with the troubling Freedom of the Press issues raised by the case.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Of course we should not forget Malcom's passages in her book indicating that she was indeed enchanted by MacDonald. For example that truly stupid passage describing MacDonald eating a donut has to be read to be believed. It is moronic.10</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Errol Morris (Mentioned by Mr. Cotton in his piece.), who wrote <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Wilderness of Error</b> which again advanced the fantasy that MacDonald is innocent has grown quiet lately. Given how people who are knowledgeable about the MacDonald case have savaged his book for its omissions and distortions. And of course the Judge's decision in late July rejecting an appeal based on "new evidence" and the judge's decision shows clearly that the "new evidence" is worthless.11</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: large;">So in the end it appears that Janet Malcolm has helped to continue a myth. The myth being that Jeffrey MacDonald is innocent, and she did it by cavalier refusal to face facts. Afterall it would not make has good a story.</span><span style="font-size: large;">﻿</span></span></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LXWrl5i5CrU/VFGj-Vf9npI/AAAAAAAAC0I/m3Ut-PUhU2g/s1600/027.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LXWrl5i5CrU/VFGj-Vf9npI/AAAAAAAAC0I/m3Ut-PUhU2g/s1600/027.jpg" height="400" width="288" /></span></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Jeffrey MacDonald</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-size: large;">﻿</span><span style="font-size: large; text-align: center;">﻿</span></span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">1. Cotton, Jess, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A Wall of Words: The Tintinnabulations of Legal Fictions</i>,<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> Los Angles Review of Books</b>, </span><a href="http://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/a-wall-of-words-the-tintinnabulations-of-legal-fictions" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">2. Malcolm, Janet, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The Journalist and the Murderer</b>, Knopf, New York, 1990.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">3. McGinnis, Joseph, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Fatal Vision</b>. Putnam Pub. Group, 1983.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">4. See <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The Jeffrey MacDonald Information</b> site </span><a href="http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">for<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>data, info and legal documents on the case. See specifically </span><a href="http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/dna-results_2006-03-10.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">for the DNA results. See also <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Just the Facts</b> </span><a href="http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">for documents and analysis of the case.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">5. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Star News Online</b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘Fatal Vision' author testifies in MacDonald case</i> </span><a href="http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20120921/ARTICLES/120929914?p=1&amp;tc=pg" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">. See also <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">No. 3:75-CR-00026-F &amp; No. 5:06-CV-00024-F</i>, July 24, 2014<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">, United States of America v. Jeffrey R. MacDonald</b>,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Order by Judge James C. Fox. pp. 107-109, 137-139, located at </span><a href="http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townn...967ccf.pdf.pdf/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">. See also <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Just the Facts</b> </span><a href="http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/and_more.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">6. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">MacDonald’s Magical Mystery Tour</b>, </span><a href="http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Jeffrey R. Macdonald</i>, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Wikipedia</b> </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_R._MacDonald" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">7. See Malcolm, Janet, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">In the Freud Archives</b>,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Knopf, New York, 1984. See also <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Malcolm's Lost Notes And a Child at Play</i>, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">New York Times</b> </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/30/arts/malcolm-s-lost-notes-and-a-child-at-play.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">. </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">8. For critiques of Freud that reveals that the Emperor indeed is naked see Esterson, Allen, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Seductive Mirage</b>, Open Court, Chicago ILL, 1993, Webster, Richard<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">, Why Freud Was Wrong</b>, Basic Books, New York, 1995, Crews, Frederick<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">, Follies of the Wise</b>, Shoemaker &amp; Hoard, Emeryville CA, 2006, pp. 15-87.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">9. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>McGinnis, Joseph, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Fatal Vision</b>, <em>Epilogue</em>, 1989, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Joe McGinniss</b> </span><a href="http://www.joemcginniss.net/the-1989-epilogue" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">10. Malcolm, 1990, p. 124. I will give here a full quote of this remarkable passage:</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">As we talked, MacDonald, who had forgone his lunch to be with me, ate some small powdered-sugar doughnuts — breaking off pieces and unaccountably keeping the powdered sugar under control — with the delicate dexterity of a veterinarian fixing a broken wing.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">The above is merely one example of Janet Malcolm’s star struck prose regarding Jeffrey MacDonald. Stuff like that and her airy dismissal of and near total ignorance of the massive physical evidence against MacDonald, (Malcolm seems to have had no interest in it.), would seem to indicate quite strongly that she to a certain degree “fell” for MacDonald. Of course it also vacates to a large degree any point to her book.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">11. See Morris, Errol, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Wilderness of Error</b>, Penguin Press, New York, 2012. See Judge Fox’s decision Footnote 5. For a discussion of the errors in Morris’ book see Lindsay, Beyerstein, Lindsay, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Wilderness of Errol</i>, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Columbia Journalism Review</b>, </span><a href="http://www.cjr.org/critical_eye/wilderness_of_errol.php?page=all" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">, Citron, Robert, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Down the Rabbit Hole</i>, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Verdict</b> </span><a href="http://verdict.justia.com/2013/01/28/down-the-rabbit-hole" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">, and Weingarten, Gene, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Since 1979, Brian Murtagh has fought to keep convicted murderer Jeffrey MacDonald in prison</i>, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The Washington Post</b> </span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/since-1979-brian-murtagh-has-fought-to-keep-convicted-murderer-jeffrey-macdonald-in-prison/2012/12/05/3c8bc1c6-2da8-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_story.html"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif; font-size: large;">Pierre Cloutier</span></span></div></div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-77032044808608287002014-09-30T19:57:00.002-04:002016-01-12T17:48:46.093-05:00<div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size: large;">Maleficent</span></strong></div><div align="center"><span style="font-size: large;">&amp;</span></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size: large;">Frozen</span></strong></div><div align="center"><span style="font-size: large;">Two Stories of Sismance1</span><br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OH-2_JSFJWc/VCtC3amurHI/AAAAAAAACzo/8C-UkTGXDdE/s1600/untitled.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OH-2_JSFJWc/VCtC3amurHI/AAAAAAAACzo/8C-UkTGXDdE/s1600/untitled.png" width="269" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Movie Poster</span></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div align="center"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Spoilers!!</b></span></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size: large;">Recently Disney﻿ gave us two different stories based on classic fairy tales. In the case of&nbsp;<span class="st"><strong>Maleficent</strong></span> it is the Disney retelling the tale of its own <strong>Sleeping Beauty</strong>. This time from the point of view of the central villain, Maleficent. In the case of <strong>Frozen</strong> we get the story of the Snow Queen suitably and quite thoroughly disneyfied and turned into a tale of two sisters.</span><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><a name='more'></a><br /></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size: large;">Of the two&nbsp;<span class="st"><strong>Maleficent </strong></span>is the most ambitious in it's retelling of the <strong>Sleeping Beauty</strong> tale and turning the villain into the hero so to speak. <strong>Frozen</strong> is in many ways more traditional than <strong>Maleficent</strong>. And of course <strong>Maleficent</strong> is a live action movie with lots of CGI and <strong>Frozen</strong> is a computer generated Pixerish cartoon.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Now<strong> Maleficent </strong>is in some ways a reversal of the story in <strong>Sleeping Beauty</strong>. In it Maleficent is a creature of a fantasy land which she is sworn to defend. She leads the magical creatures of he magic world in the successful defence against an aggressive human attack. A young man on the make, Stephen,&nbsp;tells the king he can destroy&nbsp;Maleficent for him. So he worms his way into Maleficent affections and then betrays her. Although he&nbsp;draws back&nbsp;from killing her he cuts off her wings rendering her unable to fly. And flying was a source of great joy to her. </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Convincing the king that he has killed Maleficent, by displaying her wings,&nbsp;Stephen is made heir and becomes&nbsp;king when the old king dies. He then marries and has a daughter. Maleficent shows up and pronounces a curse that upon her 16th birthday the young princess Aurora will prick her finger upon a spinning wheel needle and fall into a eternal sleep and not wake up until "true loves first kiss".</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">During all this Maleficent creates a wall of thorns to protect her kingdom and makes herself lord of the magical realm ruling, it appears, fairly harshly. Stephen in desperation has the princess Aurora hidden away. However Maleficent knows where she is and watches her. Aurora is aware that she is being watched. Eventually Maleficent reveals herself to Aurora and then Maleficent reveals to Aurora her magical kingdom.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">It becomes obvious that over the years of watching over Aurora Maleficent has come to love Aurora, and in desperation Maleficent tries to take back the curse but finds that she cannot. </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">This being a Disney movie; it ends happily and Maleficent is redeemed. However you can find out how by watching the movie.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;"><strong>Frozen </strong>takes place in mythical kingdom of&nbsp;Arendelle and is the story of two princesses the sisters Elsa and&nbsp;Anna The elder princess Elsa has the power of cold and ice, she is basically the Snow Queen. She can conjure up snow and ice by sheer will power. Through the use of her power Elsa nearly kills her sister and is thereby admonished to not use her powers at all. This creates a barrier between the two sisters. Then their parents are killed in a ship wreak and Elsa in terror of her powers retreats to her rooms and sees virtually no one.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">A few years later Elsa is crowned Queen but then losses control over her powers and flees.&nbsp;Anna helps ignite matters by falling for a guy she just met. Elsa in her panic stricken flight puts all of&nbsp;Arendelle into a permanent deep freeze.&nbsp;Anna goes to find her sister&nbsp;to try to end the endless winter. There is a fight a snow monster, some silly sidekick antics a blizzard and of course the required Disney happy ending. In which love conquers all.&nbsp;</span></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size: large;">Interestingly in both of these&nbsp;movies the central love story is not the usual Boy meets girl stuff but instead the affection between two women. This has led to certain&nbsp;brain dead idiots to claim that both movies are covert Lesbian propaganda.2 Well no! Both movies are about sisterly love. In the case of <strong>Frozen</strong> the love between two sisters and the case of <strong>Maleficent</strong> the love between a "Aunt" like character and her "niece". In other words both movies celebrate sismance. Strong affection between women. In both cases the central relationship is non-sexual the way a bromance is, but none the less&nbsp;it is strong, durable and able to overcome challenges both small and serious.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Such celebrations of affection between women are not exactly common in film and has such these films are a welcome relief from the perennial "buddy" film.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">In terms of acting&nbsp;Angelina Jolie's performance has Maleficent is quite good. She manages to convey very successfully Maleficent descent into evil and her redemption through love of Aurora. Although the most satisfying scenes in the movie are definitely those scenes in which Jolie chews scenery uttering "evil" dialogue.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">That the film owes something to <strong>Wicked</strong> is rather obvious. Sadly the other performances in the movie pale beside Angelina Jolie's performance.&nbsp;Elle Fanning&nbsp;who plays Aurora is especially overwhelmed even though she gives it a good try,&nbsp;she is&nbsp;simply is overwhelmed by Jolie.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Also the movie suffers from a very uneven script and direction, that along with too many lacklustre performances drags the movie down. Finally the movie suffers from a loss of nerve. The bottom line is that Maleficent's descent into evil doesn't go far enough and thus makes her redemption at the end not quite satisfying. The movie is in other words not dark enough. A good idea was rather pointlessly lightened up. </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Still the movie does have Jolie's fine performance, good CGI and some splendid scenes. But it could have been so much more if the makers hadn't lost their nerve. Still the movie is indeed worth seeing.3 </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;"><strong>Frozen</strong> is in many respects a slap at the previous Disney Princess flicks. It even has Elsa tell&nbsp;Anna that she won't approve of her marrying someone she just met. And given that the central focus is on&nbsp;the relationship between two sisters that is also another change of focus.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The voice acting is good to stellar, especially Elsa, (Idina Menzel) and Olaf the sidekick, (Josh Gad). </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The CGI is excellent with some of the most beautiful snow scenes I've ever seen in film. The CGI of the characters is excellent. The attention to detail is amazing. For example the way clothes seem to move naturally over limbs is quite realistic.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">But since this is a Disney musical how is the sound track? Well it is actually pretty decent with songs like, <strong>Love is an Open Door</strong>, <strong>Do You Want to Build a Snowman?</strong> etc. However the sound track is dominated by that belt of song <strong>Let It Go</strong>., which will stick in your mind for hours and is done twice in the movie.4</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">But of course the centre piece&nbsp; is the intense, but damaged relationship between Elsa and her sister&nbsp;Anna. Little things constantly remind us of the relationship. Like the way each character moves and yes how they regard each other. And the result is that the relationship is believable.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Overall the movie is satisfying viewing experience and different from previous Disney efforts in the Princess department. The script is good and fairly consistent and unlike <strong>Maleficent</strong> it is not undermined by weaknesses in script and acting.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Both movies show indeed that Sisters can do it for themselves.5</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WFtvaUqFRDE/VCtDPEPYvRI/AAAAAAAACzw/qntdm4uXLQg/s1600/untitledaaa.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WFtvaUqFRDE/VCtDPEPYvRI/AAAAAAAACzw/qntdm4uXLQg/s1600/untitledaaa.png" width="275" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Movie Poster</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">1. I A word I made up -&nbsp;the female equivalent of Bromance.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">2. I will NOT link to this idiocy.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">3. And hearing the version of <strong>Once Upon a Dream</strong> sung during the closing credits is excellent.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">4. One during the movie and during the closing credits.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">5. Allusion to 80's song Sisters are Doing it for Themselves.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Pierre Cloutier</span></div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-65116886498090128812014-08-29T23:49:00.000-04:002016-03-14T12:06:00.585-04:00<div style="text-align: center;">Sex</div><div style="text-align: center;">&amp;</div><div style="text-align: center;">Puritanism</div><div style="text-align: center;">A few thoughts<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One of the annoying things about our society is the way it deals with sex. Frankly it is both repulsive and annoying how our society overtly sexualizes so much.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Since our society at least in the west is obsessed with sex in the sense of sexualizing so much, waning interest is frequently viewed has some sort of calamity, a disaster to be thwarted, retarded and reversed. Even societies that make much of a premium on female modesty and repress overt sexuality in fact obsess over sex.<br /><a name='more'></a><br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In the Muslim world the hysterical fervour with which in some places pressure is brought to bear on women to hide their bodies and be modest, the moves, by fanatics&nbsp;like the Taliban to exclude women has much as possible from the public square speaks of an infatuation and total sexualization of the female body.&nbsp;the sight of bare skin of a women's arm, or of her hair is loaded with sexuality and men are deemed utterly unable to control themselves so the totally serxualized female form must be hidden and in fact women are so totally sexualized that women must be excluded entirely from the public square&nbsp;according to some of these fanatics. In fact women are so thoroughly sexualized that the mere public presence of a woman is deemed sexually provocative by some fanatical groups.<br /><br />Such extreme sexualization of woman goes hand in glove with the idea that women are in some sense male property whose sexualized essence has value to the male holders of the proprietry interest in the female whose sexualization and sexual nature are deemed to exist for male satisfactions and interests.<br /><br />Thus the display of female flesh is deemed to be a&nbsp;display of the sexualized female body that allows other males to participate in the sexual enjoyment of women and thus violate the proprietary interests of the men of the family.<br /><br />Now the usual justification for such is that the Koran requires&nbsp;and mandates female modesty. Of course the Koran also mandates male modesty but that is usually forgotten by the sex obsessed puritans of fanatical, fundamentalist Islam.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In comparison a nudist colony is desexualized and therefore "modest" despite the fact that everything is so to speak showing.<br /><br />Since it is clear that Puritan's of whatever stripe are in fact sex obsessed and do in fact sexualize bodies and more specifically female bodies to a truly extraordinary degree it is also clear that if anyone has a dirty prurient mind it is the sex obsessed Puritan.<br /><br />Thus during&nbsp;Victorian times Puritans proceeded to sexualize so many aspects of life.&nbsp;Some fanatics refused to say words like leg, or trousers because it referred to directly or indirectly to body parts that could be sexualized. This was of course both absurd and frankly sick. Sex was so obsessed over that&nbsp;anything that may, even obliquely, refer to&nbsp;it was to be rigorously excluded from public mention. Ones very vocabulary was to be rigorously and continually policed in order to exclude any potentially "sexual" expressions or mentions of the&nbsp;carnal body. This is of course quite similar to the aims of fanatics who have so sexualized the body that showing certain areas of the body in public like arms above the elbow legs etc., is deemed "sexual" and must be shielded from public view thus sexualizing, and turning carnal the&nbsp;display of female hair or arms and legs. Thus the entire body, especially the female body is sexualized and turned from someone's body into a collection of erotic, sexual parts that exist to excite people, generally men.&nbsp;A women becomes her sexualized body.<br /><br />If our society overtly obsesses over sex, other societies obsess by making determined efforts to avoid so-called sexual images and behaviour and by covering up the highly sexual body, especially the female body. Making all this effort to deny sex, cover it up etc., indicates a clear infatuation and obsession with it. Making all this effort to avoid it indicates at least the same degree of infantile interest in sex as modern Western societies but in a particularly grotesque and prurient manner with very unfortunate social consequences.﻿<br /><br />Pierre Cloutier</div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-32339823370164891002014-07-30T20:13:00.000-04:002016-12-16T02:19:25.740-05:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Responses to a Book Review</span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TcaaVPkxpUo/U9mJk2yu5OI/AAAAAAAACzI/Jt7Cl1OPmAQ/s1600/china-map-2-m.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TcaaVPkxpUo/U9mJk2yu5OI/AAAAAAAACzI/Jt7Cl1OPmAQ/s1600/china-map-2-m.gif" width="337" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Map of China</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">In a previous posting I put up a slightly modified brief review of a book by the ideologue Thomas Sowell, <strong>Conquest and Cultures</strong>.1 Which I had posted at Amazon.com. In that book Thomas Sowell regurgitated a basic late 19<sup>th</sup> century Whig interpretation of History view of the development of various societies. The book was in my opinion seriously flawed and basically danced over the fact, and it is fact, that Western Dominance was not just the result of the accumulation of “Cultural Capital”, (Thomas Sowell’s use of this phrase is an excellent example of the tendency of such ideologues to commodify things that are not commodities. In other words an excellent example of the commodity fetish.), but also of exploitation of others through coercive violence, fraud and exploitation. In other words straight forward imperialism. Instead Sowell argues that it was largely the result of what amounts to moral superiority. That is pure hogwash. Some people responded to my opinions of this book. Here are their comments with my responses, here expanded.</span></span><br /><a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt 27pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Mr. Cloutier disagrees with Dr. Sowell's belief that the western nations deserved their success. Of course, they deserved their success. The industrial revolution started in England in the 1840s because the English intelligentsia believed that progress could be achieved by embracing and expanding science and technology, and Englishmen of all classes considered themselves freemen who were neither serfs nor slaves. They also believed that progress would improve their lives. Neither Britain nor the other western powers prevented the world's other civilizations from developing science and inventions to improve technology. Their failure to do so was not due to a lack of intelligence. It was due to their cultural indoctrination that they belonged to their king or emperor and that they had no individual rights or liberty or even private property, for that matter. Real progress occurs in the societies that are most free.2 <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">If you read my piece you would see that I'm talking about "morally" deserving success. I do not see that an Australian Aborigine is less morally deserving than an Englishman. Of course the implication in Sowell’s reasoning is rather obvious the Australian Aborigine has less “cultural Capital” and is thus deserving of being conquered and disposed by those who bring “development”. Thus the natives of the New World before Columbus were “stagnant” and thus deserving of being conquered and thus developed by “dynamic”, “vibrant” European societies. That is a crock. The native societies of the New World were not stagnant Sowell is merely repeating hoary old myths. It is interesting to see how these types of thinkers are under the skin Stalinists, in which development justifies atrocity.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">I note you do not talk about how England etc., achieved their success. It wasn't just hard work. It was through also the use of nation state and military technology to screw others over. After all the Americas were conquered and England engaged in all sorts of efforts to screw over its European rivals. We could of course discuss the slave trade. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Your characterisation of what the average Englishman thought or felt is pure simple minded Whig interpretation of history nonsense. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>Oh and the industrial revolution started in Britain in the 1760s not the 1840s. I note you forget about or simply do not know about the various British government efforts to promote British industry and inhibit it elsewhere. As for developing Science and technology. Well contrary to your implication they were developing elsewhere than Europe and sad to say it is a simple fact that the British for one thing did in fact deliberately destroy textile manufacturing in India for the sake of British manufacturers among a whole series of other moves of a similar kind. Some of which were directed against other European powers. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>As for the rest well first of all you seem to accept the myth of the stagnant East / non-west. A complete pile of crap. To repeat Science etc., did exist in the Middle East and in the China. So sorry to say they did have Science and technology and it was developing.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">However you might want to read about how various Western powers used their military technological edge to screw over various non-Western powers and did all sorts of things to quite deliberately undercut Eastern industry including that of China. To repeat please read about what the British did to cloth manufacturing in India in the late 18th and into the 19th century. As for your last comment about Easterners belonging to their King / Emperor and the rest? Thank you for uttering a bit of cliché crud. What you have claimed is politely a wild exaggeration at best. It is however a shibboleth of a certain air-headed type of talk. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">I have no idea about what "real progress” is, however the most advanced society in AD 1000 was China, and in AD 1600 who was better off a Chinese peasant or a European? Or who was most free, guess what the probable answer in both cases is China! And of course the idea that “real progress” occurs in the societies that are "most free”. That is questionable. Just why are to give just one example why are various authoritarian East Asian states doing so well right now? I further note you have completely forgotten about how one of the foundations of European dominance was the deliberate screwing over of other peoples.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">So why did China fall behind western europe after being the most advanced society in 1000 AD? Why did living standards rise in the West and fall in the East? Pretty sure the British Empire wasnt using their military and technological advantages to "screw over" various nations then. Nor were they in the 1600s when the British Empire didnt exist. So what do you attribute this to considering the big old nasty white people done it line just wont suit? Nothing, instead you you stamp your feet by saying any other explanation is "crud" (christ sake, how old are you?) and use some big words to sound cleverer than you really are.3<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Thanks for the display of ignorance. You do realize that living standards in the east where not much different between China and Europe until at least 1700. In fact China's total wealth exceeded Europe's until at least 1750 and probably greater than any individual European power until at least 1850. Of course one of the reasons why China fell behind wasn't just Chinese stagnation, which has been greatly exaggerated but because Europeans imposed deliberately unequal treaties designed to drain China of its wealth. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>Do I have to mention the infamous opium trade with China? The fact was Indian industry was deliberately destroyed by the British to benefit themselves. India was the milch cow of the British empire. How about this exercise; Indian per Capita income barely changed under the British. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">And of course one of the reasons Europe was able to pull away from China and the Middle East was because of the conquest and exploitation of the riches of the New World via a whole series of coercive means like brutal silver mining, tribute collection, unequal exchange enforced by force and of course slavery. The effects of that were manifest before 1600 C.E. in Europe.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">You do realize that by 1600 Europe was benefiting from an exploitative relationship with the New World, all that lovely Spanish silver for example. And of course the beginnings of the triangle trade between Africa, (slaves) the Americas and Europe. Despite this in 1600 living standards in Europe, India and China didn't much differ. For a really mind blowing thought where the natives of the New world better off than Europeans in 1492? The answer is over all probably they were!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>And in fact in 1800 C.E. the difference between China and Europe wasn't huge. However by 1900 the difference was very large. And bluntly one of the reasons, like in India was the policies of European imperialists who used their possession of superior means of coercive power to impose solutions to problems that benefited them. I could go into the long history of British commercial policy by which the&nbsp;British did indeed screw over other European powers by means of tariffs, dumping etc., to help give British goods and finance an advantage. State power played a powerful role in creating European economic dominance and denial of that is just absurd. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">As for "nasty white people", thanks for the agit-prop. I could point out that until c. 1400 the Middle east treated Europe like an exploited periphery. In fact when da Gama arrived in India the response to the trade goods he arrived with to sell was that the goods were laughably shoddy. Many of the Portuguese in the years after da Gama's voyage tried to physically eliminate their Indian and Middle East competition by piracy and forcing them off the sea. It didn't work. The Portuguese eventually found they had to exchange silver for the spices they wanted or extort the spices directly. As for the "crud" expression that was in reply to the truly idiotic statement that "It was due to their cultural indoctrination that they belonged to their king or emperor and that they had no individual rights or liberty or even private property, for that matter." That statement is indeed pure "crud" and utter nonsense. Reading a few books about Qing dynasty China or the Moghul empire might clear up that piece of mythology. Oh and I never said it was all "bad" Europeans. China had been very successful for millennia and was in 1700 the wealthiest state in the world and its people prosperous. In fact much of the 18th century was a golden age for China. This bred complacency and played a powerful role in ensuring that China's attempts to deal with the challenges of the 19th century would largely fail. However the notion that Europeans did it entirely by dint of hard work is nonsense. Part of the process was the exploitation of others.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">As for how old am I? I am 55 years old, and I see no problem in labelling as “crud” stupid, ignorant statements.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">1. Basic Books, New York, 1999. My book review is at </span><a href="http://makinapacalatxilbalba.blogspot.ca/2009/12/blinkered-history-book-cover-sowell.html"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">Here</span></a><span style="font-size: large;">.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">2. See at </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/REQS4KQ937UFA/ref=cm_aya_cmt?ie=UTF8&amp;ASIN=0465014003#wasThisHelpful"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">Here</span></a><span style="font-size: large;">.</span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">3. IBID.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Some Reading<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Blaut, J.M., <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Eight Eurocentric Historians</b>, The Guilford Press, New York, 2000.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Diamond, Jared, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Guns, Germs, and Steel</b>, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 1998.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Mote, E. W., <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Imperial China</b>, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass, 1999.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Dawson, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Imperial China</b>, Penguin Books, London, 1972.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">McNeill, William H., <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The Rise of the West</b>, Second Edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago ILL, 1991.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Davis, Mike, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Late Victorian Holocausts</b>, Verso, London, 2001.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Hobson, John M., <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization</b>, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Goody, Jack, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The Theft of History</b>, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Pierre Cloutier</span></span></div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-35980071408129100512014-06-30T17:58:00.001-04:002016-12-16T02:03:35.939-05:00<div align="center"><span style="font-size: large;">Diluted</span></div><div align="center"><span style="font-size: large;">Delusions</span></div><div align="center"><span style="font-size: large;">A Very Brief Look at Homeopathy</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H_4INJfelV4/U7HdTcnz8XI/AAAAAAAACyw/5L4CQMlMb-4/s1600/WaterMolecule.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="336" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H_4INJfelV4/U7HdTcnz8XI/AAAAAAAACyw/5L4CQMlMb-4/s1600/WaterMolecule.gif" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In the late 19th century the German Doctor Samuel Hahnemann devised, or more accurately pulled out of his ass the pseudo medical practice of Homeopathy. Dr. Hahnemann decided by fiat that a substance that would cause the particular symptoms of a disease would if given in small amounts treat beneficially the same symptoms of an actual illness. The idea was that like cures like. Now so far it doesn't sound too outrageous even though it smacks just a little like sympathetic magic. But then the major woo started to be added.</span><br /><a name='more'></a><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Dr. Hahnemann decided that diluting the substance made the "medicine" more potent. This as with the above principle was decided by fiat and his subjective experiences. Then he added the final element of pure woo.1</span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The final principle was the principle of &nbsp;"succession". This involved striking the glass vial with the diluted liquid 10 times against a wooden board covered with leather stuffed with horsehair. This supposedly fixed the curative properties of the "cure" into the vial's contents.2</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Now I can see a sort of logic with the first point in that giving someone something that may be thought&nbsp;produce symptoms like a particular illness may produce a&nbsp;immune response and the patient be able to deal with the symptoms better. So superficially at least it makes a sort of sense. But it is still a type of sympathetic magic. To quote:</span></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">But could homeopathic remedies work like a vaccine, where we introduce tiny amounts of some germ to a patient to stimulate immunity? Superficially, they sound like the same thing, but in reality there is no comparison. Atypical vaccine has billions of killed viruses or virus fragments in a few millilitres of solution, and those work immediately stimulating the immune system to kick into high gear and recognize their chemical signal, so that&nbsp;the white blood cells quickly attack when a full-strength virus invades at some later time. By contrast, a homeopathic remedy is pure water, or at best one or two molecules of an active ingredient, and there is no reason to believe these things stimulate the immune system or anything else.3</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">However numbers two and three are just pulled out of thin air total woo. The idea of dilution increasing the potency of a medicine doesn't make much sense and the notion that a woo woo ritual will fix something into the water is just absolute nonsense. It ranks right up their with all sorts of medical chicanery and alternative medicine nonsense. And of course Dr. Hahnemann just pulled it out of the air and his delusions.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In the&nbsp;context of his time Dr. Hahnemann's crap isn't quite so insane has it appears today. After all mainstream medicine at the time was full of absurd theory and bizarre treatments. Scientific Medicine barely existed and people were well advised to avoid a conventional Doctor with his purges, dangerous operations and most horribly the widespread use by Doctors of blood letting to "cure" people. Often such treatments "cured" people of the disease called life. Early Homeopathy by having its patients avoid such death dealing treatments probably inadvertently saved lots of lives. Also the silly theory of dilution increasing drug potency was no more silly than mainstream Doctors notions of the four humours and assorted other nonsense about disease.4</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Thus in context Homeopathy isn't quite so silly; that is the context of the late 18th and early 19th century. In the course of the 19th century Medicine became truly scientific and we learned via advances in physics a great deal about how the universe works. Homeopathy was left far behind as a bizarre relic of a bygone age of credulity.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The key feature in pointing out the absurdity of Homeopathy is the dilutions. Homeopathic remedies are prepared by starting with a 1 part in a hundred dilution, and then that dilution&nbsp;is mixed into a&nbsp;1 part per hundred mix and so forth. Thus a common Homeopathic is 30C which is 1 in 100 to the 30 or 1 followed by 60 zeros. How much of a dilution is that well if a sphere of a diameter of 90 million miles was composed of water a dilution of 1 part per 1 followed by 60 zeros would mean there was one molecule of the substance in the sphere! In other words in your small vial all there would be would be water and your Homeopathic pills with a drop of such diluted water in it&nbsp;are just sugar pills.5</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Amazingly some Homeopathic dilutions are greater than the above there are Homeopathic dilutions of 200C! Which means If the entire Universe was filled with water there would be not a single molecule of the substance in the water!6</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">How Homeopathic remedies are developed is amusing; the process is called proving. It consists a group of volunteers, (One to several dozen),&nbsp;taking 6 doses of a remedy over a range of dilutions over two days and keeping a diary about&nbsp;the physical, emotional etc., symptoms they feel. This creates a symptom&nbsp;picture of the remedy and this is put in a big Homeopathy book and since like cures like then dilutions of this remedy will&nbsp;help with symptoms caused by a disease that causes those particular symptoms.7</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">On the face of it Homeopathy is simply idiotic and a nice way to take money from peoples pockets. But then bizarre things have turned out to be true in the past. After all the theory of relativity to say nothing of quantum mechanics are pretty strange but also real. However in the case of Homeopathy the special pleading explanation that water has a "memory" faces certain problems.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">It has not been demonstrated that water has a "memory". How does water avoid having a "memory" of all the stuff that been mixed with it? The explanation that the water's "memory" has to be fixed by striking a vial of the water 10 times on a board covered in leather is bluntly risible and stupid.8</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In fact&nbsp;on January 30,&nbsp;2010 a group of British skeptics staged a Homeopathic overdose day in which they each took hundreds of times the recommended amounts of Homeopathic remedies. If the Homeopathic remedies were for real and increasing dilutions did indeed increase potency then doing this should have resulted in severe injury or death in some cases. Since all they were doing was consuming water and sugar nothing adverse happened at all.9</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">And of course Homeopathic remedies have not been shown to work any better than placebos.10</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">That Homeopathy is a multi-billion dollar business today is simple proof of the gullibility of people.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">1. Goldacre, Ben, <strong>Bad Science</strong>, McClelland &amp; Stewart Ltd., Toronto, Ont, 2011, pp. 30-35. See also&nbsp;<em>Samuel Hahnemann</em>, <strong>Wikipedia</strong>&nbsp;&nbsp; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Hahnemann">Here.</a></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">2. Goldacre, pp. 32-33.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">3. Prothero, Donald R., <strong>Reality Check</strong>,&nbsp;Indiana University Press, Indianapolis, Ill, 2013, p. 191.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">4. IBID, pp. 191-192, Goldacre, pp. 33-34.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">5. Goldacre, p. 35. See also Prothero, pp. 189-190.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">6. Goldacre, p. 35.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">7. IBID, p. 33.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">8. IBID, pp. 36-38.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">9. Prothero, p. 195.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">10. Goldacre, pp. 38-47.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Pierre Cloutier</span><span style="font-size: large;">﻿</span></div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16218624.post-73350101553833954422014-06-21T00:30:00.000-04:002014-11-03T11:52:07.287-05:00<div align="center"><span style="font-size: large;">The O. J. Simpson Fiasco</span>&nbsp;</div><div align="center"><br />﻿﻿<br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-D2-WVteM16w/U6T4Q6ccCMI/AAAAAAAACyg/hKSagKi_SZo/s1600/875BUNDY.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-D2-WVteM16w/U6T4Q6ccCMI/AAAAAAAACyg/hKSagKi_SZo/s1600/875BUNDY.jpg" height="316" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Simpson Murder Scene</span><br />&nbsp;</td></tr></tbody></table></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">It has been 20 years since Nicole Brown Simpson&nbsp;and Ron Goldman were brutally murdered and the whole O. J. Simpson farce was started. If the coverage of this anniversary is anything to go by it appears that little to nothing has been learned from the media circus that was the O. J. Simpson trial.</span><br /><a name='more'></a><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">To get the most obvious out of the way. It is now as clear as these things can be that O. J. Simpson was in fact guilty, guilty, guilty!! The book that he tried to publish <strong>If I Did It</strong>,1 is pretty damn close to a full confession and settles the matter&nbsp;more or less conclusively.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">However in the celebrations, (right word) of the twentieth anniversary of this event much was forgotten or ignored. For example:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The media reporting of the anniversary did not take advantage of the opportunity afforded to engage in any sort of reflection or self criticism. Instead it just assumed that the story was worth and deserving of the intense to the point of absurd idiocy the coverage it got.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">For the bottom line is that the story did not in the slightest deserve the coverage it got. On any rational level the coverage was idiotically excessive. The media referred to it as "The Trial of the Century". Saying or reading that utterly stupid statement should make its patent falseness and dumbness rather obvious.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Really the O. J. Simpson murder case was "The Trial of the Century"?! The empty headed, lighter than air nonsense of asserting that should be at once apparent. As for what was the "Trial of the Century", How about the Nuremburg Trial of 1946, or the Tokyo Trials of 46-48, or the Trial of the Gang of Four in China or Brown v. The Board of Education2&nbsp;and so on and so forth. The O. J. Simpson Trial was no more the "Trial of the Century" than&nbsp;a theft by a pickpocket was the theft of the century. The media idiots who uttered this idiotic phrase were bull shitters, bull shitting away.&nbsp; </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">This was to be blunt a murder trial in which a third rate American celebrity was charged with two murders; on the cosmic scale it is nothing and on a earthy scale it is of meaning only to those immediately concerned. To everyone else it is of very minimal importance or notice.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">But of course the 20th anniversary of this event was not the occasion of any media self-criticism or self evaluation. At no time did anyone in the media ever ask the question "Why did we cover this in such depth?", "Did we devote too much time and resources to covering this case?".&nbsp; These questions were avoided like the plague because to ask them would be to question the basic ethics and motives of the media.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">For it is obvious that the purpose of covering the story in such depth was to attract at low cost a huge horde of viewers so that advertising space could be sold and thus huge profits made by the various news outlets. Real news is hard work, and takes time and money. However ersatz, fake news like the Simpson absurdity are cheap and easy and thus can generate huge profits.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Because News is all about making money not telling people about what is going on. Thus News only as an incidental by product occasionally tells people news that is actually germane, most of the time it tells news to generate vast profits for itself and thus&nbsp;make money.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">The O. J. Simpson case illustrated quite clearly the fact that the News media is basically a whorish enterprise dedicated to attracting customers not to providing information. It also indicated clearly the astounding laziness of the media.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">In the grand scheme of things the murders were pretty prosaic and ho-hum but since they involved a third rate celebrity the media had their excuse to waste everyone's time with hyperbolic nonsense and out and out lies about the importance of the case. Including utter bullshit like it being the "trial of the century".</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">If the media utterly disgraced itself with its over the top, wildly excessive coverage of the case the actual trial itself was little different.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">First the trial was turned into a media circus joke. The Judge's decision to allow the trial to be televised turned the trial into a reality TV farce. Thus we got both the prosecution and defence spending much of their time performing before the cameras and concentrating on how well they looked. Thus was ignored that a trial is for the purpose to determining in this case guilt or innocence not in how the viewers were entertained or impressed .</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">The ironic result of televising the case was that the O. J. Simpson trial is used has an example of why televising actual trials is NOT a good idea. In fact it as resulted in many judges refusing to allow trials to be televised. Watching footage of the trial is embarrassing, the trial was turned into a bad joke and a piece of performance art and justice was quite forgotten.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">In fact this coverage via TV was so disastrous that it effected how the case was argued. Both sides attorneys being much concerned with how they looked on camera.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Another aspect of the case is the fact that the prosecution to a large extent muffed it and muffed it badly. Although the prosecution's lawyers want to blame other causes they muffed it.3</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Then there is the issue of Jurors who in post trial statements revealed with quite frightening candour that many of them were bluntly clueless. How such people end up being Jurors is rather alarming. Still considering how the prosecution muffed the case it is not surprising the jury voted to acquit.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">After all in all fairness once Fuhrman was revealed to have lied in his testimony about using the n-word all of his testimony was tainted. Which brings in the last issue - Racism.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">The Los Angles police department had a long - long history of stupidity and racism which was all to familiar to the local Black community. They were primed to believe the worst about the local police because everyday experience validated it. And bluntly the prosecution did very little to effectively counter act the rather implausible conspiracy frame-up concocted by the defence.4</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">After all just two years earlier had occurred the infamous Rodney King riots in Los Angles. In this poisonous stew of violence and a police force&nbsp;perceived has racist, with a lot of justification,&nbsp;came the O. J. Simpson trial. </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Now O. J. Simpson was at the time basically a "honorary White person", and bluntly the idea that the police would frame him was implausible in the extreme. In fact O. J. got along well with the police. If the police were going to frame a Black person he was not an obvious choice. Further O. J. Simpson had basically left the Black community to live among and hang around rich White people. That did not prevent him from using Black people's experience of racism to help get him off. It was bluntly highly cynical and successful.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">The irony of the case after it was over was that O. J. Simpson was thought&nbsp;to have&nbsp;gotten away with murder. Well in a way that is not true. And it is not just the follow up civil trial in which O. J. Simpson forced this time to testify and&nbsp;was caught out by his lies and evasions and found to be responsible for Nicole and Ron's deaths, but that he is perceived by in large to be a guilty murderer and treated as a pariah; and he ended up in jail on a totally unrelated charge. So the notion he got away with it is an exaggeration.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Also the case indicates that societies obsession with celebrity can have pernicious consequences. The very fact O. J. was a celebrity led to&nbsp; chain of events and set off a pattern of behaviour that resulted in a judicial farce that perverted the course of justice and serves as an outstanding example of how NOT to conduct a trial.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">In other words the O. J. Simpson trial and media circus was a fiasco.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">1. The book was basically a cynical attempt to cash in on his own crime by O. J. Simpson. The attempt failed because the book was seized by the Goldman family in satisfaction of their civil claim in the civil suit.&nbsp;See Simpson, O. J., <strong>If I Did It</strong>, Beaufort Books, New York,&nbsp;2008.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">2. See <strong>Wikipedia</strong>, <em>Nuremberg Trials </em></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials"><span style="font-size: large;">Here</span></a><span style="font-size: large;">. For the Tokyo trials see <strong>Wikipedia</strong>,<em> </em><span dir="auto"><em>International Military Tribunal for the Far East</em> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Trials">Here</a>. For the Gang of Four Trial see <strong>Wikipedia</strong>, <em>Gang of Four </em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Four">Here</a>. For Brown v. Board of Education see <strong>Wikipedia</strong>, <em>Brown v. Board of Education</em> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._board_of_education">Here</a>.</span></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">3. Probably the only decent book about the case is Bugliosi, Vincent,&nbsp;<strong>Outrage</strong>, W. W. Norton and Co., New York, 2008. This book positively tears apart both the prosecution, the defence, the media and the Judge, but is fairly forgiving&nbsp;about the jury although he notes their more than occasional cluelessness. Bugliosi is also very hard, and justifiably so, on the Los Angles Police department.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">4. For the total cock-up that was the Prosecution see Bugliosi, chaper 4 - <em>The Trial</em>.</span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Pierre Cloutier</span><br />﻿</div>Pierre Cloutierhttps://plus.google.com/112229194858588270391noreply@blogger.com0